The 'Executive Order' conundrum.

[Ishmael]

Or, "Why Obama would prefer Liz 'I'm a Cherokee' Warren running in 2016 than Hilary."

Obama's use of 'executive orders' to circumvent congress is well known by now and will be coming to a head with his proposed immigration reform order(s) that will flood the nation with uneducated, unskilled, unhealthy, and non-English speaking immigrants. Much to the extreme detriment of the lowest quin-tile on the income scale.

The problem that Obama faces as far as his legacy is concerned is that while executive orders have the effect of law, they do not have the force of law. This is particularly true when those orders are in conflict with laws that are already on the books.

As one man may dictate, another may un-dictate. That is to say that a president elected in 2016 can not only rescind any previous executive order, he/she can also cause any consequences of said order to be revoked as well and no act of congress would be required.

ALL of the illegals that Obama would instantly 'legalize' would just as instantly find themselves on the illegal side of the fence with the added benefit that now they are card carrying entities they would be much easier to track down.

Given the overall unpopularity of his proposed move, AND the fact that by 2016 the consequences of his move would have become felt through the length and breadth of the land, such a recension would most likely be applauded by the electorate.

Is it any wonder that Obama is desperate to have another fire breathing liberal to succeed him in office?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Liberals who most want Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to run for president are wealthy white males.

Though Warren tries to fashion herself as a champion of the working class, Democrats who make below $50,000 prefer Hillary Clinton.

A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that the 11% of registered Democrats in the "Warren Wing" who would vote for Warren for president is composed of "wealthier Democrats, those with college degrees, whites, and men," as MSNBC pointed out. The poll found that "16% of whites say they’d vote for Warren, compared to just 4% of nonwhites. Meanwhile, Warren captures 20% of college graduates, and just 5% of those who lack a degree." Hillary Clinton's "support is actually 4 percentage points stronger among lower-income Democrats," and Clinton "also does slightly better among nonwhites, those without college degrees, and especially women."

As Breitbart News has noted, wealthy progressive donors have been working behind the scenes to set up a "Ready for Warren" organization should Warren decide to run.

MSNBC noted two other national polls that showed the same trends:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...essive-Males-Want-Liz-Warren-to-Run-for-POTUS

 

[miles]

Obama's use of 'executive orders' to circumvent congress is well known by now and will be coming to a head with his proposed immigration reform order(s) that will flood the nation with uneducated, unskilled, unhealthy, and non-English speaking immigrants.

AKA "Democrat voters."

 

[kbate]

Executive orders do carry the full force of law. They are primarily used to modify or clarify laws already on the books, which is why nearly every executive order dealing with a law, cites the law it effects.

Executive orders are not easily repealed or removed or circumvented.

A new president may always modify or change the executive orders of a past president.

Congress may choose to write new law to avoid an executive order, may choose to defund an executive order, but since those take legislation which may be vetoed, Congress needs 2/3 of members willing to overturn an executive order before it's worth the paper (not that the republicans won't try, just for press). They may also (as can anyone) challenge an executive order in court. About 7 (Five for Roosevelt, 1 for Truman and 1 for Clinton) out of 13500 have been overturned by the courts.

President Obama (at 182) still is well behind President George W. Bush (291) in issuance of executive orders. He is well below most presidents in number of orders issued.

I doubt that an illegal alien made legal through a change to immigration policy, would be come illegal under a revocation of that policy. Once documented, always documented. That would come to the courts under ex post facto.

Way to make a non-issue into a thread though.

 

[Ishmael]

Executive orders do carry the full force of law. They are primarily used to modify or clarify laws already on the books, which is why nearly every executive order dealing with a law, cites the law it effects.

Executive orders are not easily repealed or removed or circumvented.

A new president may always modify or change the executive orders of a past president.

Congress may choose to write new law to avoid an executive order, may choose to defund an executive order, but since those take legislation which may be vetoed, Congress needs 2/3 of members willing to overturn an executive order before it's worth the paper (not that the republicans won't try, just for press). They may also (as can anyone) challenge an executive order in court. About 7 (Five for Roosevelt, 1 for Truman and 1 for Clinton) out of 13500 have been overturned by the courts.

President Obama (at 182) still is well behind President George W. Bush (291) in issuance of executive orders. He is well below most presidents in number of orders issued.

I doubt that an illegal alien made legal through a change to immigration policy, would be come illegal under a revocation of that policy. Once documented, always documented. That would come to the courts under ex post facto.

Way to make a non-issue into a thread though.

First of all that is just not true. At one time foreign nationals were allowed to vote in national elections.

And it most certainly can be done, let congress undo it if they can.

Ishmael

 

[kbate]

If that is true, then you and your Republican friends should be cheering for the Obama immigration policy. You may get 11 million illegals to register and get documents and you will know where they live when you repeal and begin their trials and deportations.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

First of all that is just not true. At one time foreign nationals were allowed to vote in national elections.

And it most certainly can be done, let congress undo it if they can.

Ishmael

There is a story out now that they still are.

 

[Ishmael]

There is a story out now that they still are.

I saw that. God bless 'motor voter.'

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Gawd bless los Estados Unidos...


Si.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Gawd bless los Estados Unidos...


Si.

Why do #ThosePeople insist on voting?

Life would be sooooo much easier if they'd only #ShutTheirMouthAndKnowTheirRole

 

[kbate]

First of all that is just not true. At one time foreign nationals were allowed to vote in national elections.

And it most certainly can be done, let congress undo it if they can.

Ishmael

Yes, aliens were permitted to vote in nearly all states beginning with the founding of the nation. Starting around the war in 1812-13, their right of suffrage has been eliminated. It has been about 88 years since the last alien had a right to vote in any election in any state.

Amazing how the country managed to survive all that alien voting from 1776 to 1926.

That is not an equitable comparison between giving them legal status, and then taking it away. Original voting law, especially as there was no such thing as an "alien" in 1776 as there was no nation in 1776 - did not take into account any status other than "male and resident or landowner". States simply made law (and constitutional amendments) over the subsequent 150 years clarifying who was allowed to vote.

Legal status to work and live and drive in the nation does not grant suffrage either, but hey, let's not quibble with facts involved, because we can just feel the creeping influence of the non-executive-order's wrath upon our polling places already.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Which party was Yoda in?

 

[Saint Peter]

Which party was Yoda in?

The Party of Green Eggs and Ham.

http://www.eclectablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/tedcruz.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's why Yoda will always be smarter the Petey and knows where his next meal will come from. You go earn it.



With Democrats, you always have to go somewhere and vote for someone or something to get our daily handout.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Mm-Mm, That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
http://moonbattery.com/Melowese-Richardson.jpg
That's what I voted for!
6 TIMES!

 

[Saint Peter]

The lighting is bad in the pic. Washes out the green.

The ears tell the story.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The lighting is bad in the pic. Washes out the green.

The ears tell the story.

Maureen Dowd got her ass kicked for talking about Obama's ears...

Why is it you people will castigate the black man (Rice) for the beat down of a woman and then turn around and cheer when Palin Bristol gets beat down?

Was it because it was by a white guy?

White like Me?

Speaking of Rice, why do you dump on Condi and celebrate Susan? Shouldn't she get the Aunt Jemima treatment too?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And why all your hate on this Hispanic guy?



Don't you want their votes?

 

[Saint Peter]

I thought he was a texan.

 

[Saint Peter]

I love Condi. I can even overlook "forgetting" to mention the immanent attack that took down the towers.

Shit happens.

And she is a hottie. Fox News caliber of hottie.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Cruz does sound a lot like Houston.

That's why they call it Santa Houston...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

'imminent' you ignorant wretch.

Your English is worse than your Spanish...

[A Tombstone reference for Byron.]

 

[Saint Peter]

'imminent' you ignorant wretch.

Your English is worse than your Spanish...

[A Tombstone reference for Byron.]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immanent

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Jesus fuck what is it with you libs and your preference for connotation over denotation?


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imminent

 

[Saint Peter]

sub human
subhuman

Whatever.