Quantcast

Amnesty?

Leasheryn/Lady Willpower 2012/06/18 00:43:20
NO
Yes
You!
Add Photos & Videos

President Obama announced Friday he will end the deportation of up to 800,000 illegal immigrants under the age of 30, allowing them to stay in the U.S. and get work permits. Do you support the President’s action?

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • The_Infidel_Atheist 2012/06/18 07:56:00
    Yes
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    +5
    First off, Obama is not granting amnesty. Second, who was it that signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, otherwise known as the 1986 Amnesty bill? Oh yeah this guy...
    reagan
  • Wolfman The_Inf... 2012/06/18 08:38:42
    Wolfman
    +7
    It's not 1986 and, oh yeah, it's amnesty. It is also illegal.
  • The_Inf... Wolfman 2012/06/18 08:48:17
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    +2
    It's not illegal. Article 2, Section 2, of the Constitution, gives the president the power to grant amnesty. There is also a precedent for it. George Washington did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Andrew Johnson did it. Reagan of course did it, and even Gerald Ford did it. Sorry, but you're wrong.
  • Wolfman The_Inf... 2012/06/18 08:51:32
    Wolfman
    +6
    No, it does not. Article 1, Section 8 gives that power to Congress. Sorry, yo are wrong.
  • sbtbill Wolfman 2012/06/18 19:37:28
    sbtbill
    +2
    You are correct, however Article 2 section 1 does give him the power to do this. It says the executive power shall be vested in the President. It is well within the executive power to tell the Attorney General what his priorities should be and what should be ignored until those priorities are met.
  • Birthpangs sbtbill 2012/06/19 01:25:08
  • Wolfman sbtbill 2012/06/19 04:05:17
    Wolfman
    Executive powers are for things not specified in the Constitution like troop movements and pardons. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). The Executive has no immigration authority except to sign legislation.
  • The_Inf... Wolfman 2012/06/18 20:09:24
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    +1
    lol Article 2 are the executive powers gives the president to grant reprieves and pardons. So no, I'm not wrong, you are!
  • Wolfman The_Inf... 2012/06/19 04:07:39
    Wolfman
    This is neither a reprieve or a pardon. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). The Executive cannot usurp the power of Congress. Sorry, you're wrong.
  • The_Inf... Wolfman 2012/06/19 04:36:10 (edited)
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    +1
    The Executive's pardon power of the United States Constitution has been broadly interpreted by the Supreme Court to include a variety of specific powers. Among those powers are: pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.
    Source - P.S. Ruckman, Jr. 1997. “Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900-1993),”27 Presidential Studies Quarterly, 251-271

    If you still think I'm wrong you can direct your concerns or questions to the the Office of the Pardon Attorney (U.S. Department of Justice).

    Dunning-Kruger effect. Argumentum ad nauseam.
  • Wolfman The_Inf... 2012/06/19 04:51:14
    Wolfman
    Congress controls Amnesty, not the Executive. There is no question. I have directed my concerns to my Governor, my Senators and Congress.
  • Franklin The_Inf... 2012/06/18 13:15:28
    Franklin
    +1


    LOL- Obama himself said what he did last week was illegal !
  • Franklin Wolfman 2012/06/18 13:16:29
    Franklin
    nope its not 1986 ...its 1984 !
  • Wolfman Franklin 2012/06/18 15:12:19
    Wolfman
    +3
    Only because we have a Marxist in the White House that just let 800,000 illegal aliens through the gate.
  • Franklin Wolfman 2012/06/18 19:37:01
    Franklin
    +1
    it will be a lot more than 800K ...this illegal act by Obama is a BLANK CHECK for immigration abuse-
  • Wolfman Franklin 2012/06/19 04:08:51
    Wolfman
    Agree. Email your congressman and senators.
  • Franklin Wolfman 2012/06/19 11:47:17
    Franklin
    +1
    ..do that all the time and it works except for the one guy who does not give a crap what the voters think ... http://tinypic.com/zy9sx#Bill...
  • psiEnergos The_Inf... 2012/06/18 10:13:08
    psiEnergos
    +5
    The key word is 'Bill'. It was already PASSED by Congress! Reagan merely finalized it. He did not grant amnesty by fiat (Executive Order).
  • The_Inf... psiEnergos 2012/06/18 20:17:42 (edited)
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    Read the bill. It was not just granting amnesty. The major part of the bill was consequences to employers for hiring non-citizens. That is the part that needed Congress' approval in order to be implemented. Granting amnesty by fiat is one of the presidential powers. Ford granted Nixon amnesty after his Watergate impeachment, by fiat. Andrew Johnson granted amnesty to Confederate soldiers after the Civil War.
  • psiEnergos The_Inf... 2012/06/18 23:15:20 (edited)
    psiEnergos
    Hmm, while you posit an interesting argument, I believe it creates more of a 'slippery slope' than a foundation for your argument. Let's look at what amnesty is:

    'Amnesty (from the Greek ἀμνηστία amnestia, oblivion) is defined as: "A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted" It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense. The word has the same root as amnesia. Amnesty is more and more used to express 'freedom' and the time when prisoners can go free.'

    Keeping in mind we have an important point here: "It includes MORE THAN A PARDON" (emphasis mine). This alone creates the legal question of whether or not article 2 even applies (especially since the article specifically stated "pardon criminals" which implies their conviction has already occurred in court. With amnesty, no such action occurs. This alone possibly negates any 'fiat' you believe the article conveys. The confederate soldiers amnesty was not exactly by fiat either:

    "On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson provided for amnesty and the return of property to those who would take...



    Hmm, while you posit an interesting argument, I believe it creates more of a 'slippery slope' than a foundation for your argument. Let's look at what amnesty is:

    'Amnesty (from the Greek ἀμνηστία amnestia, oblivion) is defined as: "A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted" It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense. The word has the same root as amnesia. Amnesty is more and more used to express 'freedom' and the time when prisoners can go free.'

    Keeping in mind we have an important point here: "It includes MORE THAN A PARDON" (emphasis mine). This alone creates the legal question of whether or not article 2 even applies (especially since the article specifically stated "pardon criminals" which implies their conviction has already occurred in court. With amnesty, no such action occurs. This alone possibly negates any 'fiat' you believe the article conveys. The confederate soldiers amnesty was not exactly by fiat either:

    "On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson provided for amnesty and the return of property to those who would take an oath of allegiance. However, former Confederate government officials, officers with the rank of colonel and above from the Confederate army or lieutenant and above from the Confederate navy, and people owning more than $20,000 worth of property had to apply for individual pardons. Though it was difficult for ex-Confederates to ask for a pardon for something they did not believe had been wrong, thousands did ask for and receive amnesty from President Johnson." (source: http://www.wtv-zone.com/civil...

    As for Nixon, there are a few that contended that Ford over reached HIS powers when he granted him amnesty as well (especially in light of the fact that Nixon still refused to admit any wrong doing, and he had not been formally convicted, what he was really given was immunity), in fact many agree it cost Ford his re-election bid. So both of you examples aren't exactly making your argument here.

    The point is, Article 2 Section 2 is clearly being abused if this is going to be cited as the source of authority to grant fiat authority to give back door amnesty to illegal immigrants (granting reprieves and pardons implies 'already convicted'). Anyone with any sense (legal or otherwise) can see that this article section was not written to convey this and would not necessarily stand up to a legal challenge. It will be interesting to see if it happens though given the polarity of the issue.
    (more)
  • The_Inf... psiEnergos 2012/06/19 03:26:52
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    The pardon power of the United States Constitution has been broadly interpreted by the Supreme Court to include a variety of specific powers. Among those powers are: pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.
    P.S. Ruckman, Jr. 1997. “Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900-1993),”27 Presidential Studies Quarterly, 251-271

    Given the precedent of past presidents (Washington, Lincoln, A. Johnson, FDR, Truman, Ford, Carter, and Reagan) granting amnesty, I doubt that a court would even take up the case. If you believe that a law has been broken, feel free to direct your concerns or questions to the Office of the Pardon Attorney (U.S. Department of Justice).
  • psiEnergos The_Inf... 2012/06/19 11:14:55
    psiEnergos
    Of all the Supreme Court cases cited (almost all were individual criminal cases), only one seemed to be applicable in this scenario, and again, the court opinion does not fully support this move. In Brown vs. Walker, the court opinion was stated:

    *601 The act of Congress in question securing to witnesses immunity from prosecution is virtually an act of general amnesty, and belongs to a class of legislation which is not uncommon either in England, (2 Taylor on Evidence, § 1455, where a large number of similar acts are collated,) or in this country. Although the Constitution vests in the President "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment," this power has never been held to take from congress the pass acts of general amnesty, and is ordinarily exercised only in cases individuals after conviction, although, as was said by this court in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 380, "it extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

    So you can see the Supreme Court both placed no limits, but also indicated what the power was for and not. And clearly it is stated that it is ...

    Of all the Supreme Court cases cited (almost all were individual criminal cases), only one seemed to be applicable in this scenario, and again, the court opinion does not fully support this move. In Brown vs. Walker, the court opinion was stated:

    *601 The act of Congress in question securing to witnesses immunity from prosecution is virtually an act of general amnesty, and belongs to a class of legislation which is not uncommon either in England, (2 Taylor on Evidence, § 1455, where a large number of similar acts are collated,) or in this country. Although the Constitution vests in the President "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment," this power has never been held to take from congress the pass acts of general amnesty, and is ordinarily exercised only in cases individuals after conviction, although, as was said by this court in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 380, "it extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."

    So you can see the Supreme Court both placed no limits, but also indicated what the power was for and not. And clearly it is stated that it is was NOT to be used to take from congress the power to pass acts of general amnesty.

    Clearly no law was broken, but it did open a window for a legal challenge due to past interpretation. Previous ones however did not feel this was the proper use of the articles powers. Again, the question is, would such improper use be justification for Judicial level intervention? I think many will disagree on the answer even if the Judicial branch took a pass.
    (more)
  • Franklin The_Inf... 2012/06/19 11:54:48
    Franklin
    nice try racetard ! but your way off and just spinning on this one - Obama has the power to pardon that is true , he does not have the power to selectively enforce laws or hand out work permits to foreign nationals – he is operating outside the law and outside the powers of the office he holds
    again nice try sending people to the department run by Eric Holder to address this issue knowing full well Eric is a criminal himself and that this is not the issue at hand so any petition would be ignored - but it was a nice try ! Hats off to ya kid
  • The_Inf... Franklin 2012/06/19 18:47:32
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    Racetard? I never said anything about race.

    It's okay. You have the right to your own beliefs, no matter how delusional they might be. I know how you right-wingers hate facts.

    Argumentum ad nauseam.
  • Leasher... The_Inf... 2012/06/19 00:58:21
    Leasheryn/Lady Willpower
    Living in a dream?
  • The_Inf... Leasher... 2012/06/19 04:37:02
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    The American Dream!! lol
  • Franklin The_Inf... 2012/06/19 12:10:55
    Franklin
    What “America” ? You are now less than equal to citizens of all other nations (illegals retain rights that supersede US law) and we are a check book for other nations ...we have to bail out the EU because they do 860 billion a year in trade with the US and that makes giving them 1.8 trillion (so far more to come before the year is over) in bail out funds (that lousy math kid!)
    -2% GDP growth + 4% inflation + 13% government growth = a net lose of 15% per year !
    -Obama single handedly cut all funds for the border fence (we have no border LOL)
    -Military budget is up by 200 billion a year but we are firing soldiers and quitting wars ?
    -Freddy Mac is number 8 on the fortune 500 list and they lost 16 billion dollars last year !
    -White house projections even with the class-war taxes show us 45 trillion dollars in debt in less than 4 years
    -assassination , warrant-less detention , drones spying on US citizens , paying new enemies of this country instead of fighting them , back door deals with Russia and China etc etc
    Your “dream” is a nightmare kid !
  • Laura Franklin 2012/06/19 15:14:17
    Laura
    Actually, Obama has increased border security and has also deported more illegal immigrants in the past four years than Bush did in both terms. Actually his strict immigration policies have gotten much scrutiny in the past four years and this is really the first thing he has done to help illegal immigrants instead of hurt them. And it is geared only towards people who came as children into this country. This will allow immigration to focus their energy where it is actually needed, while allowing these children, teenagers and young adults to come out of the shadows and actually contribute to our economy.
  • Wolfman 2012/06/18 07:51:31
    NO
    Wolfman
    +4
    Obama has violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution with his amnesty declaration. This is treason. Congress should nullify Obama's declaration and impeach him.
  • Artist~... Wolfman 2012/06/18 12:12:31
    Artist~PWCM~
    +4
    Yeah right, like that's going to happen...they barely sneezed at his violation of the war powers act.
  • Wolfman Artist~... 2012/06/18 15:13:27
  • Leasher... Artist~... 2012/06/19 01:00:01
    Leasheryn/Lady Willpower
    +2
    Of course it's not going to happen, not will we have a weak, lily-livered Senate. Just wait until we have a strong government again and see what happens.
  • Leasher... Wolfman 2012/06/19 00:59:20
    Leasheryn/Lady Willpower
    +2
    Well done, my friend!
  • AL 2012/06/18 07:14:09
    NO
    AL
    +4
    Since when does our Marxist Dictator Obama have the legal right to pick the crimes he's going to have enforced now?
  • Leasher... AL 2012/06/19 01:00:35
    Leasheryn/Lady Willpower
    Since he thinks he can get away with his illegal presidency.
  • AL Leasher... 2012/06/19 06:06:24
    AL
    I just wonder what Laws WE NEED to break as U.S. Citizens to get a much lower tuition for our own Children and Grand children?
  • AL Leasher... 2012/06/19 06:13:08
    AL
    I just wonder what laws I need to break-to get a much lower college Tuition for my own two Grandson as well then?
  • Lord Emperor of Dune 2012/06/18 06:52:58
    NO
    Lord Emperor of Dune
    +2
    Illegals will do hard work for cheap, but I think, nay, KNOW that if Americans had to hire Americans to do the work, there would be Americans to do it. You know, Jeffferson's whole idea for america was the Yeoman Farmer, right? Americans tied to the land, and therefore having a vested interest in it, his community, his economy, and by expansion, the nation itself. None of us are foolish enough to believe that without the illegal workforce nothing would change. It would be rough for a time. But we could only go up from there. Hell, have kids do ag-work instead of hanging out at the mall developing all of their sickening ideas on entitlement!
  • Leasher... Lord Em... 2012/06/19 01:01:15
  • Hula girl - Friends not Fol... 2012/06/18 06:48:22
    NO
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +4
    King Obama need to butt out and let Congress do their job.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/02 16:51:57

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals