Looks like Obama;s Executive order has failed in Federal Court uet again

The Administration's is appealing the Federal District Court's injunction against Obama's Executive Order on Immigration. Arguments were heard before the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans. As usual the federal courts are not overly swayed by the Constitutional Lawyer-in-Chief's position. It looks like they are going let the injunction stand by a ruling of 2 - 1. The one holdout is an Obama appointee. No, surprise there. It is time that the judicial system tell the President one and for all that it can not that he can not set the Constitution aside whenever he feels the desire. Of course, Obama will keep ignoring the injunction.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/court-chilly-to-obama-immigration-moves-117104.html

 

your ignorance of how things work in the US is astounding. you need to take a civics 101 class.

 

Really? That's the best you could come up with? Let's see if I am ignorant of how things are supposed to work. (Notice I said "supposed to". Not how Obama wants them to work.) According to the US Constitution Article 1 Section 1 states:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Obama has confused his right to issue Executive Orders with a right to actually issue laws. Presidential Executive Orders are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

I usually do not quote Wikipedia, but in this case they have done a creditable job defining Executive Orders. I have color coded parts to draw attention to the relevant parts. You will notice that it states that, " United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself." In other words, they are intended for administrative issues only.

If you read the section in red you will see that the President may issue orders that have the full force of laws only when the Constitution or the Legislative branches gives the President discretion over certain elements of the law. If a law does not give the President any discretion within a law, then Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 applies (Bold section of the quote below):

In case you did not know, Article II of the Constitution defines the powers and limitations of the US President. So, if a law does not allow the President explicit discretions, he is required to "faithfully execute" the law. He can not amend the law through Executive Order as he attempted to do on Immigration. Another interesting item to point out. The Congress can not delegate the Legislative authority to the President, (Refer to SCOTUS case Clinton v City of New York.) It stands to reason that if the Congress can not delegate authority to the President, the President can not assume the Authority.

Now please draw your attention to the blue text of the Wikipedia quote. You will see that the Executive Orders are subject to judicial review by the Federal Courts system and the US Supreme Court. In this case, the Federal Courts have placed an injunction on the President's Executive Order on Immigration until the challenges by the states work their way through the judicial process. The Administration attempted to get the US 5th District Court of Appeals to remove the injunction, but the court looks to be siding against the Administration 2 - 1.

So, please tell me where I do not understand how this country works?

 

It's always belly laughter time whenever Obama supporters TRY to lecture Right of Center posters about the U.S. Constitution or the nation's Justice System and so forth and so on.

 

Long on accusation; extremely short on basis.

Liberal? I haven't seen you post before, so I'm just guessing. Tell us!

 

Ah. Well: I guess I don't need him to respond anymore.

 

Obama said 'over 20 times' he lacked authority to act alone on immigration

He will continue to fail in federal court.

 

Even if the poster had done so, most of the time the end result of a Left of Center person responding in regards to Constitutional or judicial issues amounts to nothing more than an expression of how things should be based on feeeeeeeeeeeeelings. It . . . gets . . . old.

 

that is ok, that is the way the system works, at least Obama is trying to address the issue, when will Congress do the same?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/palin-fears-med/

"Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said."


yeah the right and their superior knowledge.... lol


.

 

Just curious - why do you think the Federal Court upheld the injunction?

 

So, are you willing to hold both parties to the same standards? If it's a negative attack when it comes from one side - is it also a negative attack when it comes from the other side?

I only ask this because I've never really seen any candidate attacked and treated as poorly as Palin was treated.

 

can you give an example like I just gave so we know what were referring too


.

 

+1. Some really good belly laughter.

 

you are simply creating your own reality so you can continue to demonize Obama. don't pretend your interpretation is any better then his cause it is not.

 

nope, not a liberal just tired of those that make crap up. I guess 1,100 post does make me a newbie.

 

what amazes me is how little you know about the constitution. Your assumption that I am an Obama supporter shows how totally devoid of intellectual integrity you are.

 

Yeah, I get that a lot. It comes with the territory of preferring humor on the whole to arguing politically based nuances that ultimately do not amount to a hill of beans in the great scheme of things. But what YOU could do in the future is simply state your alternative perspective WITHOUT leading off with a dig at a poster. But you see it's that dig that sets off the humorists because the dig is an expression of arrogance-based hubris; and as such it is oh so very tempting to poke at with a sharpen stick.

So INSTEAD of leading off with "Your ignorance of how things . . . " you could have instead simply left off the PERSONAL ATTACK in favor of calmly, coolly stating what you believe to be the real facts of the matter under discussion.

 

Really, the President, any President usually attempts to usurp Legislative Authority that is vested to the Congress by the US Constitution. You call that business as usual. The President does not have the authority to act unilaterally on Immigration. Just because Congress has not addressed the issue is no reason for him to set the.Constitution asside. His attempt is a clear violation of the Constitution, and is an impeachable offence.

The really histerical part of this is that the President has not actually addressed anything. His impeachable action has done nothing more than kick the can down the street. Liberals have missed that the President has gone way out on a limb for nothing. You realize that if Obama is given a free pass on this issue, the a Republican President in the future can use the same tactic to address an issue like Abortions, gun laws or any other topic that liberals and conservatives disagree on. His justification would aslo be that Congress was not addressing the issue. Eventually, we would have to change the title from President to King or dictator. Do you think this the best direction for this country's future?

 

Sure, here's an analysis of how the liberal media took part in a true character assassination against Palin.

http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/...tworks-have-portrayed-sarah-palin-dunce-or-de

That said - I was never a Palin fan - but after attacks like that - it's no surprise that she uses the same methodology against Obama.

What goes around - tends to come around.

 

when you start doing it I will. pot calling the black glass window house you live in a kettle. holy crap dude did you think I don't remember what you type?

 

I have not created anything. I have merely stated facts, and backed those facts with sources. You challenged my knowledge of how things works in this country. Yet, you have not posted anything that shows that you have any knowledge on the subject what so ever. If you think Obama's position has merit then defend it with sources to back up your arguement. Otherwise you have no standing in this debate.

 

You forget how your first post was to RKHames and began with "YOUR ignorance of how things . . . " You began with a personal attack against the OP author. I hadn't even chimed in at that point. So it is not a pot/kettle thing. Alter your posting habits or not, wail about the results or not. That's up to you by way of personal responsibility. Enjoy.

 

I wouldn't be so sure on how the Fifth Circuit will rule on the appeal. A three-judge panel ruled the other way in a similar action brought by the State of Mississippi. See article at:
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...mplications-for-the-dhs-immigration-policies/

 

you are making stuff up again...facts are different from personal attacks.