Nothing prevented Democrats from trying to impeach President Reagan, if they believed his actions on immigration violated the public trust.
As I've pointed out, he can't pardon illegal aliens.
Whether or not Obama's action is legal may be a matter for debate. As we've gone over before, he can undoubtedly issue a pardon. Completely within his Constitutional power as President. How far he goes, or tried to go will determine the legality. WE don't know what that will be yet.
I suspect, personally, that this will be another empty threat from Obama.
Are you aware of the pardon powers of the President?
Dems are still pissed at their own Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich.
While Bush-43 refused to pardon Cheney's buddy Scooter Libby--to his credit .
I understand that a pardon isn't citizenship.
Let's see what happens in court on that one.
wonder why you don't hear your GOP threatening to go to court ?
Exactly--Democrats and Tip O'Neill cut Reagan a huge amount of slack with Iran/Contra don't you think?
Just as Obama did with Cheney on Iraq-2!
And what thanks did Obama get--Fast and Furious shoved up his ass as fast and furiously as GOPs could !
Let's see what happens in court on that one.
wonder why you don't hear your GOP threatening to go to court ?
I said I believe you are more left that you believe you are or you claim to be. How does one prove that? Do I go find every utterance you have ever made and run a statistical analysis of the leftist phrases among them and compare them with the neutral and rightist phrases? Or do I go with my intuition?
Bashing dems is like destroying ISIS by occasionally killing a fighter or two. It is ineffective. I think you know it. You are still more left than you claim.
Nor will I. It is a fools errand which you are better suited to do. Let's take just the first one to see how much you bash Obama
Right that is real powerful bashing. LOL. I see no reason to go any further given that you chose this to prove how hard you are on Obama. You cannot see just how leftist you are. Peas in a pod...
I was an intelligence officer for most of my 20 year career...
Reagan got Grubered by the usual suspects in the Democratic party
Adding a statute of limitations to law is changing that law. To say that X is still a crime but that those committing X before 2007 are no longer subject to being charged with X now is illegal. That creates future immunity rather than merely granting amnesty for past acts.
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...
I came across this article from Fox News explaining how illegal and unconstitutional President Obama's EO on immigration is (considering the man hasn't even outlined what his proposal is, I find it hard to say what's unconstitutional about it) and one thing caught my attention.
In section 3, 2nd paragraph, the author mentions a 1996 immigration law (or revisions thereto) enacted under former President Clinton. I did some research and found the law here. You'll have to go down to Division C, but it's clear the minors brought to this country by their parents are at no fault for their parent's actions. Moreover, the 1996 makes clear that deportations will only take place in instances where obvious violations of the social disorder takes place.
Bottom Line: Unless the President authorizes something something outlandish, from my brief reading of INA law as a whole and Division C of the 1996 law, the President would be "faithfully executing the law".
In a way you are correct. Reagan believed that the democrats were honorable men. He was a simpleton. No one, under any circumstance should ever believe what a liberal, a Progressive, a national socialist, and international socialist or any other Democrat ever says. I believe this is why he moved on to "Trust but verify".You admit then that Reagan was a simpleton. I've always known Reagan was a piece of ****, but it's refreshing to see you admit it.
"Reagan got Grubered by the usual suspects in the Democratic party"
In a way you are correct. Reagan believed that the democrats were honorable men. He was a simpleton. No one, under any circumstance should ever believe what a liberal, a Progressive, a national socialist, and international socialist or any other Democrat ever says. I believe this is why he moved on to "Trust but verify".
Last night a coup took place. The American system of government fell to a tyrant. The federal government is in enemy hands. In my opinion this sets the stage for a revolution or a civil war.Will you join me in welcoming the millions of new Americans into the country after President Obama opens the door tonight? :lamo
Last night a coup took place. The American system of government fell to a tyrant. The federal government is in enemy hands. In my opinion this sets the stage for a revolution or a civil war.
I think you are full of...hyperbole. :lamo
Impeachment requires an actual crime or an act directly in conflict with the president's duty to work for the good of the nation and the American people. Arguably going beyond his authority in order to actually do some governing when congress won't is hardly either of those.
Congress is welcome to attempt to rein in presidential power via legislation or constitutional amendment, but it would have to apply to the office itself, not just this president that they don't like.
It will be interesting to learn the reaction of 10's of thousands of employers who are likely to learn many of their employees lied about their status, and provided fraudulent documents in order to work for them.
I would hope they view this revelation as an indicator of the character of a person who would put their business at such risk, and take immediate steps to terminate their employment.
During my time as a machinist, do you know how many shops I worked for that had illegals working there. The boss knew it, but didn't care.
How would I know how many shops you worked for that had illegals working there?
Personally, I will never allow my company to hire someone who shows up with documentation provided through the Presidents unilateral action. Learning they have no character and no respect for the law is all the evidence I need to learn they would be a terrible employee, and someone I would not want the people who work for me to have to deal with.
There will be many, like you, who were harmed last night who will fail, as you have, to understand what happened. The Constitution was voided. Our borders were declared open to any who can reach them. If you earn less than 100K per year your wages were suppressed. If you work in technology you may find yourself replaced by an Indian or Pakistani.I think you are full of...hyperbole. :lamo
Let me educated you. It's called a rhetorical question.
Go for it! I hope if this unlikely scenario where to take place, I would hope the employee would sue the **** out or you and your company.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?