Executive Order challenge: fair or foul?

Executive Order challenge: fair or foul?



seams to me Holder and Obama are seeking to unconstitutionally abuse the Constitutional laws... Be it as they may wish the only thing Holder can with hold would be his own words as such the respect of his personal rights of Self-incrimination, as such the 5th Amendment, Yet seeking to with hold any papers of facts as in this matter papers that can easly be gotten by force via writ of certiorari & writ of Mandamus via the 4th Amendment named and out lined in such by orders of the inqury of the courts by direction of the congress such he could not with hold the papers belonging to the tax payers we the people for the action of the Congress, less such would be crime of obstruction of justice and constructive treason ,such Indirectly a Violation of civil rights. of the families seeking justice do them from any 1st Amendment redress...

have you ever read the history of the 14th Amendment Section 3,

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Note the fact the vote..for

have you ever read the civil rights Act or force acts 1833-1871

such again give the right of the people in other or related factos to hold officers of the state lible in federal courts for seeking to deprive given rights,, that is not limited to matter that would cause harm or death from bad leadership , making them the elected of the state of the states that had over cite lible in other parts related to the facts ...denying voting rights The voting powers of the congress to act in good faith of the people if they sought let the matter go with out such votes of by then they are to at fault...??

Holder is lible as is Obama have you ever read
42 USC § 1986 - Action for neglect to prevent

reading and or research on my own I thought such powers of say the president in order too use such powers had to have the voted blessing of the congress to act other wise such order would be rejecting the voice of the representative republic we are to be less such is ? Indirectly or directly seeking to deprive the rights of the people basic voting rights with such.

.I don't you can yet I will say it any way

..please correct me if I am with err in my views yet as I understand George Washington that he was to have rejected at the end of the revolutionary war was ask to become such the King more or less such granting him the immunities Obama and Holder seek rather the Justice of the rights to hold accountible our elected officers of the league of common defense when they act out side of such constitutional rules such would be Constructive treason? for the facts Holder and Obama sought to give aid arms to our foes a act of war with out the out lined Joint will of such nations by the vote of the congress...I make such notes of the Historical views of the Voluntary tax systems of spending for such things

It's time, for their own benefit, for Republicans, Conservatives, immigration policy hysterics and rest to shut the heck up about this, roll with the punches, grin and bear it and try to find someway to salvage something here.

Jeb Bush was exactly right: Resentful opportunists within the party, like Tom Tancredo, have ginned up a monster by promoting hysteria about illegal aliens -- let's call it what it is, Mexicans, and put the the party in a box.

You have a real mess on your hands with the Hispanic community, which USED TO BE moving toward parity between the parties, and now you --we-- have been utterly out-manuevered by Barack Obama. That includes Steve King, a host of other hotheads, and even usually well-considered pundits like Charles Krauthammer.

And. . . Obama may well be setting you up again.

What, may I ask, are all of you with your hair on fire about this going to do if Obama simply decides to withdraw his "Executive Order," which amounts to a TEMPORARY and conditional reprieve, stay of deportation (or whatever) and decides to go whole-hog and issue a complete AMNESTY or PARDON to all those named in his policy change?

Sue him? Impeach him for "unconstitutional actions."

I think not.

Look, on several levels, Obama may indeed be the worst President we’ve ever had and frankly I do think him to be so.

However, "rule of law" includes first and foremost the Constitution of the United States and like every president before him, Obama has the legal power to override the justice system, release anyone he chooses from imprisonment or from paying a fine, and return that person to a state of innocence as though he had never committed a crime.

In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Let me say that again: By the United States Constitution. Specifically, it is stated that

"The President … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

The Supreme Court — in accordance with its own Constitutionally granted powers (like it or not) has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and, yes, amnesties.

Moreover, the power to do this is plenary. That is, it is complete and it is his alone. The president isn’t required to explain or justify his actions to you, to me, to Congress nor, for that matter, to anyone else .The power to pardon is solely in the discretion of the president, and cannot be reviewed or overturned by any of the other branches of government.

Immigration hawks are screaming right now about how this man thinks himself a King and, well, we don't have a King. That may be true, but in a sense, the power to pardon is is — and always has been — rather like the power of a king, as its basis is almost certainly in the royal Prerogative of English Kings.

It does not require a conviction nor even a formal charge. Remember Richard Nixon? Think it has to be done on a case by case basis? Then recall Jimmy Carter's wholesale amnesty following the Vietnam War.

Of course, some may protest that he, Obama, has not issued a pardon or amnesty here, only an "Executive Order", and that therefore he has acted unconstitutionally, lawlessly and in a way rising to the level of an impeachable offense.

Really? As though having been given the whole apple, one might be criminal for taking only a bite? (There are other metaphors here, but I demur to use them.)

This is, again, why conservatives should shut-up, grin and bear it and roll with the punch they've taken.

Pushing the President, assuming he has not technically granted amnesty here, may well simply encourage him to do so, and beyond that point there is no appeal. Once done, it would be be permanent as to those so "pardoned," and beyond the power of a future President to rescind.

All of which means, speaking of "Kings", the good representative Steve King’s vow to "sue and win" a case against this policy is almost surely a fool’s errand.

One possible strategy for opponents might be to acknowledge that the mere presence of a minor child in-country is not actually a "crime," as such, but only a civil misdemeanor and thus not subject to the pardon power. Or perhaps, they could follow the decision already issued in Plyler v. Doe from the 1970s, i.e., that there is no crime at all and that minor children brought here by their parent are innocent -- repeat, innocent -- because they neither had control of their parents actions nor of their own status..Since, ostensibly, you can't pardon a non-crime, then perhaps they could insist these folks be deported in a mere administrative, non-criminal process.

But I don’t suppose the hysterics on this matter would very much like THAT approach, would they?.

Unfortunately, Obama has, with this action, probably increased his margins within the Hispanic community (not a racial group, by the way) and for the near term put any gains there out of reach for the Republicans.

That’s sad, because this admittedly cynical political ploy by Obama might have been denied him . . . had Republicans simply supported immigration reform four years ago.