Amnesty for illegals under 30 starts today
Guess what, taxpayers? Today is the first day that illegal aliens up to age 30 can apply for Obama's amnesty.
What's that, liberals and Democrats? Y'say this is NOT an amnesty?
What makes you conclude that it's not an amnesty? Because King Barry said so? Must be that, cuz here's how dictionary.com defines the word:
Did their entry into the U.S. violate U.S. law? Of course. But not only is Obama giving them a pass on this, he's giving them a huge present on top, by permitting them to stay in the U.S. indefinitely. In effect Obama is rewarding them for breaking the law, by jumping them ahead of people who followed our laws.
Sounds like amnesty to me.
Seems to me Obama's unilateral order to federal employees to ignore the status of illegal immigrants has effectively rewritten U.S. law. Wow, here all these years I'd been under the impression that the Constitution didn't allowed that--and in fact commanded the president to faithfully enforce the law. But clearly, Obama and the Dems only obey laws when they want to.
If that's the new standard, why even have a federal code?
It may be instructive to look how the U.S. Supreme Court treated presidential overreach in the past, and compare to today: Back when Nixon was prez, congress kept approving funding for activities Nixon opposed. Nixon countered by simply refusing to spend the money congress allocated to those functions.
This was called "sequestration" or sequestering, and the court eventually ruled that it was illegal. In other words, the president had to follow laws passed by congress.
Another tactic was called a "line-item veto." Democrat congresspricks were famous for inserting pet items into "must-pass" bills. This put the president in the position of having to accept the outrageous spending item to avoid vetoing a needed bill. Thus Republican presidents who disagreed with a particular item of spending would line-out the offensive item. In essence this was sequestering under another name. And the court treated it the same way: yew can't do dat.
Seems to me that a president ordering federal employees not to enforce a law is tantamount to a line-item veto, and if the Supreme Court rejected the latter it should reject Obama's order as well. But of course, with as many idiot liberal judges as we have now it's likely that the court would allow Obama to do as he wishes, and simply hope no one noticed the court's inconsistency in the two cases.
We are no longer a country of laws.
What's that, liberals and Democrats? Y'say this is NOT an amnesty?
What makes you conclude that it's not an amnesty? Because King Barry said so? Must be that, cuz here's how dictionary.com defines the word:
- a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government; often granted before a trial
- an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole;
- an overlooking of any past offense.
Did their entry into the U.S. violate U.S. law? Of course. But not only is Obama giving them a pass on this, he's giving them a huge present on top, by permitting them to stay in the U.S. indefinitely. In effect Obama is rewarding them for breaking the law, by jumping them ahead of people who followed our laws.
Sounds like amnesty to me.
Seems to me Obama's unilateral order to federal employees to ignore the status of illegal immigrants has effectively rewritten U.S. law. Wow, here all these years I'd been under the impression that the Constitution didn't allowed that--and in fact commanded the president to faithfully enforce the law. But clearly, Obama and the Dems only obey laws when they want to.
If that's the new standard, why even have a federal code?
It may be instructive to look how the U.S. Supreme Court treated presidential overreach in the past, and compare to today: Back when Nixon was prez, congress kept approving funding for activities Nixon opposed. Nixon countered by simply refusing to spend the money congress allocated to those functions.
This was called "sequestration" or sequestering, and the court eventually ruled that it was illegal. In other words, the president had to follow laws passed by congress.
Another tactic was called a "line-item veto." Democrat congresspricks were famous for inserting pet items into "must-pass" bills. This put the president in the position of having to accept the outrageous spending item to avoid vetoing a needed bill. Thus Republican presidents who disagreed with a particular item of spending would line-out the offensive item. In essence this was sequestering under another name. And the court treated it the same way: yew can't do dat.
Seems to me that a president ordering federal employees not to enforce a law is tantamount to a line-item veto, and if the Supreme Court rejected the latter it should reject Obama's order as well. But of course, with as many idiot liberal judges as we have now it's likely that the court would allow Obama to do as he wishes, and simply hope no one noticed the court's inconsistency in the two cases.
We are no longer a country of laws.
posted by SF at
10:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home