How Obama's Immigration Decision Will Lead to Tyranny

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-immigration-decision-lead-tyranny-182000135.html

By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 15 hrs ago

COMMENTARY | Politico notes that by announcing the government will no longer deport young illegal aliens under certain conditions, he is following a policy strategy of ignoring the law. He has also established a precedent for President Mitt Romney.

To be sure, as the Daily Caller relates, there are some curmudgeonly folks like Charles Krauthammer who think the president ought to obey and enforce the law. But Obama has cast aside the tired, obsolete model of governing. Now enforcement "discretion" is the order of the day. After all, it is not as if Congress was going to impeach the president for violating the law and his oath of office.

Suppose Romney has been elected president. On his first day in office, between the swearing in and the inaugural parties, he can enact a tax cut by executive fiat. John Yoo, writing in National Review, cheekily suggests President Romney could lower taxes by announcing the IRS will no longer prosecute people who refuse to pay their capital gains taxes. One would go further and suggest a blanket amnesty for people who are less than $20,000 in arrears to the IRS, something that would also have the salutary effect of putting those fly-by-night companies that promise they will "fix" things with the IRS for people in tax trouble out of business.

Yoo goes further to suggest Obamacare, should the Supreme Court decide to keep it around, could be rendered null and void by using the same enforcement discretion Obama has used on immigration laws and just refuse to enforce it.

There is no limit to the amount of power a president has if he chooses to follow in Obama's footsteps in deciding what laws to enforce and which ones not to. Congressional appropriations will become mere suggestions. If the Defense Department feels it should spend money in other ways than Congress has dictated, a future president perhaps won't stop it from doing so. The Department of Education could ignore its appropriations bill and block grant a school voucher program. NASA could spend money going back to the moon -- or not -- no matter what Congress says to the contrary.

That road leads to a president ruling more like a king than elected head of a republic. That is what makes what Obama has done so pernicious.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't you love the, oh-no-the-sky-is-fvcking-falling bullsh!t coming from the Right Wingers.

Selective memory... fvckers

signing statements George W. Bush employed during his reign to selectively nullify laws he didn't like—1,200 of them!

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/03/09/obama-rolls-back-unconstitutional-george-w-bush-signing-statement-policy

[aaydrian 479]

This article doesn't help Republicans/Democrats/Independents soooooo what's the point?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Don't you love the, oh-no-the-sky-is-fvcking-falling bullsh!t coming from the Right Wingers.

Selective memory... fvckers

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/03/09/obama-rolls-back-unconstitutional-george-w-bush-signing-statement-policy

Selective memory? Some of us went after this as well. Some of us went after Bush for doing this. Some of us went after Clinton for doing the same.

The difference being those signing statements are done while a piece of legislation is being signed/passed into law. They aren't randomly years later to change policy that isn't liked.

What's funny as well is that Bush did it that way more than any other President Because of the SCOTUS ruling on the line-item veto. It's a work around of that. Is it right? No. Either veto the entire legislation or pass it all, but politics is politics in Washington and Bush was working with the cards he was dealt. Obama can (and probably has done) the same thing.

What we're talking about now is completely different. We are talking about changing actual law that was passed by congress, signed by a President and so far has not been challenged by the courts. The president can't just magically 'deem' a law as no longer vaid. The system doesn't work that way.

The funny part about this being too is all the drones out there who support this garbage on the basis that 'congress isn't doing anything.' - Yeah well, take that up with congress. Just because congress isn't sending what you want to your desk, doesn't mean you get to make ####### up on your own. That's called being a dictator, a tyrant, or whatever form of singular control you want to call it. This is the United States of America, not Germany circa 1920 looking for an all powerful new leader to rise up.

Regardless of political affiliations, no one should stand for this who believes in the rule of law in this country and the idea of checks and balances.

[웃 910]

How Obama's Immigration Decision Will Lead to Tyranny

http://news.yahoo.co...-182000135.html

By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 15 hrs ago

Sarah Palin a Modern Cold War Hero in the Making

Mark Whittington, Yahoo! Contributor Network

Edited June 18, 2012 by ☠

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sarah Palin a Modern Cold War Hero in the Making

Mark Whittington, Yahoo! Contributor Network

[mawilson 2,133]

It will lead to tyranny of the Hispanic minority, much like the tyranny of the AARP.

Hispanics are a pivotal voting bloc that no political contender can afford to alienate.

I'm sure Romney will waver on deportation as well, trying to widen his appeal among Hispanic voters.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Sarah Palin a Modern Cold War Hero in the Making

Mark Whittington, Yahoo! Contributor Network

This is amazing. This guy's legit.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Why are Hispanics happy to be depicted as promoting criminality?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Why are Hispanics happy to be depicted as promoting criminality?

IMHO they are the ones who are most vocal in matters of immigration. For that reason, many equate illegal immigrants to Hispanics, incorrectly.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Selective memory? Some of us went after this as well. Some of us went after Bush for doing this. Some of us went after Clinton for doing the same.

The difference being those signing statements are done while a piece of legislation is being signed/passed into law. They aren't randomly years later to change policy that isn't liked.

What's funny as well is that Bush did it that way more than any other President Because of the SCOTUS ruling on the line-item veto. It's a work around of that. Is it right? No. Either veto the entire legislation or pass it all, but politics is politics in Washington and Bush was working with the cards he was dealt. Obama can (and probably has done) the same thing.

What we're talking about now is completely different. We are talking about changing actual law that was passed by congress, signed by a President and so far has not been challenged by the courts. The president can't just magically 'deem' a law as no longer vaid. The system doesn't work that way.

The funny part about this being too is all the drones out there who support this garbage on the basis that 'congress isn't doing anything.' - Yeah well, take that up with congress. Just because congress isn't sending what you want to your desk, doesn't mean you get to make ####### up on your own. That's called being a dictator, a tyrant, or whatever form of singular control you want to call it. This is the United States of America, not Germany circa 1920 looking for an all powerful new leader to rise up.

Regardless of political affiliations, no one should stand for this who believes in the rule of law in this country and the idea of checks and balances.

Are you referring to G. H. Bush or W? Because the line item veto died during Clinton's presidency.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Sousuke

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

IMHO they are the ones who are most vocal in matters of immigration. For that reason, many equate illegal immigrants to Hispanics, incorrectly.

Incorrectly? Let me guess. Most of those illegal immigrants coming across our southern border are Scandinavian?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Incorrectly? Let me guess.

Why not use facts, instead?

Present-day countries of origin

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows (latest of 2009):^[16]

Country of origin Raw number Percent of total Percent change 2000 to 2009

Mexico 6,650,000 62% +42%

El Salvador 530,000 5% +25%

Guatemala 480,000 4% +65%

Honduras 320,000 3% +95%

Philippines 270,000 2% +33%

India 200,000 2% +64%

Korea 200,000 2% +14%

Ecuador 170,000 2% +55%

Brazil 150,000 1% +49%

China 120,000 1% -37%

Other 1,650,000 15% -17%

source: http://en.wikipedia....egal_immigrants

Edited June 18, 2012 by Gegel

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Incorrectly? Let me guess.

Why not use facts, instead?

Present-day countries of origin

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows (latest of 2009):^[16]

Country of origin Raw number Percent of total Percent change 2000 to 2009

Mexico 6,650,000 62% +42%

El Salvador 530,000 5% +25%

Guatemala 480,000 4% +65%

Honduras 320,000 3% +95%

Philippines 270,000 2% +33%

India 200,000 2% +64%

Korea 200,000 2% +14%

Ecuador 170,000 2% +55%

Brazil 150,000 1% +49%

China 120,000 1% -37%

Other 1,650,000 15% -17%

source: http://en.wikipedia....egal_immigrants

It looks pretty much Hispanic to me. Iv'e got a calculator how about you? According to that post of yours over 90% of the illegals in this country are Hispanics.