Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Baylor Ambassador SicEmBaylor's Avatar
    Location
    74434
    Posts
    21,870
    vCash
    500

    Reagan Amnesty vs Obama Amnesty

    The difference between the Reagan amnesty and the Obama amnesty is very much apples to oranges. Reagan’s was done WITH the consent of Congress and, in fact, his executive order was intended to correct a deficit in the legislation which failed to cover children in the United States whose parents were waiting for approval to stay -- the order deferred deportation of children whose parents were actively applying for amnesty. This was a simple oversight of the legislation when it was originally written. What Reagan DID NOT do was use the power of executive order to blatantly create new law counter to existing statutory law.

    Let’s review, for a moment, the Constitutional purpose of the President of the United States: The President of the United States was neither intended to have nor given the right to create law. The domestic role of the President of the United States was to execute law and policy as passed by Congress and signed into law by either the current President or his/her predecessor. The Congress -- not the President -- was created to be the branch responsible for creating, shaping, and guiding social policy. Why? Because the Congress was a split between the representatives of the people directly (House of Representatives) and the representatives of the states as a whole political entity (Senate); thus, the Congress (i.e. Federal government) crafts law consistent with both the desires of the people and the interests of the states as a whole. No one person was ever intended to create or craft law which is why the responsibility is given to the Congress and not the President. The President, for his or her part, is given the ability to veto legislation (ostensibly in those cases when the legislation is unconstitutional or conflicts with rapidly changing international/diplomatic circumstances); however, the President has no right to demand or expect Congress to bend to his or her will.

    This President has grossly exceeded his Constitutional and legal authority by, for all intents and purposes, changing existing United States law entirely on his own without the consent of Congress. This is absolutely an impeachable offense regardless of whether impeachment is politically feasible. For the first time since Lincoln’s wholesale dispense of the Constitution, this President has created the precedent that the Chief Executive can, entirely on his own and without the consent of Congress, create new law. This is as scary a development as any I’ve seen in my, admittedly, relatively short lifetime. The use of executive orders in this way ought to be cause of concern for liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans alike regardless of whether or not you technically agree with the policy found therein.

    It is absolutely true that Obama isn’t the first President to exceed his Constitutional authority. Virtually every President, with a very small handful of exceptions, has exceeded their authority and done so relatively routinely -- especially since the establishment of the so-called ‘imperial Presidency.’ This goes quite a bit above and beyond what most Presidents prior to this one would have dared attempt. Even Richard Nixon was never so bold as to attempt to use executive orders to disregard the will of Congress quite to the degree that this President has on such a massive scale. This President has now legalized more people than jobs have been created for his entire term. We now shift a massive financial and infrastructural burden to local communities, counties, and states to deal with the results of this action. Millions of convicted felons who are guilty of everything from rape to gun smuggling for the cartels are now, effectively, safe from deportation. What would land you in a Mexican prison for decades is now completely legal in the United States, and we’ve sent the message that breaking our borders and our laws is perfectly acceptable so long as it is done so en-masse.

    No President has or should have this level of authority regardless of their political affiliation. It should scare and frighten every liberty loving American who respects and believes in the Constitution of the United States and our law. You may rush to defend this action simply because the man doing it has that (D) next to their name, but you should be utterly appalled.

    This action has no legal or Constitutional justification. Unfortunately, the Roberts Court has proven itself unwilling to risk the appearance of partisan preference in order to overturn overtly unconstitutional acts/law so it’s unlikely we’ll find remedy with SCOTUS. The only upside is that the next President can overturn this mess with one stroke of the pen moments after taking the oath of office. We can only hope he or she will be more judicious of their use of the executive order while being a better steward of the Constitution.

  2. #2
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Location
    Wishing I was moving to Monroe, Oklahoma...
    Posts
    11,182
    vCash
    500
    Thank you Sic for the well written and documented as well as insightful summary.

    The Leftist is a usurper and needs to be sued or impeached. Period.
    Everything progressives do is aimed at weakening democracy, capitalism and the social and cultural institutions that support those things...... They are about subjugating people and being a ruling class.
    Posted from iOS app

  3. #3
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    2,422
    vCash
    500

    Re: Reagan Amnesty vs Obama Amnesty

    Quote Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor View Post
    The difference between the Reagan amnesty and the Obama amnesty is very much apples to oranges. Reagan’s was done WITH the consent of Congress and, in fact, his executive order was intended to correct a deficit in the legislation which failed to cover children in the United States whose parents were waiting for approval to stay -- the order deferred deportation of children whose parents were actively applying for amnesty. This was a simple oversight of the legislation when it was originally written. What Reagan DID NOT do was use the power of executive order to blatantly create new law counter to existing statutory law.

    Let’s review, for a moment, the Constitutional purpose of the President of the United States: The President of the United States was neither intended to have nor given the right to create law. The domestic role of the President of the United States was to execute law and policy as passed by Congress and signed into law by either the current President or his/her predecessor. The Congress -- not the President -- was created to be the branch responsible for creating, shaping, and guiding social policy. Why? Because the Congress was a split between the representatives of the people directly (House of Representatives) and the representatives of the states as a whole political entity (Senate); thus, the Congress (i.e. Federal government) crafts law consistent with both the desires of the people and the interests of the states as a whole. No one person was ever intended to create or craft law which is why the responsibility is given to the Congress and not the President. The President, for his or her part, is given the ability to veto legislation (ostensibly in those cases when the legislation is unconstitutional or conflicts with rapidly changing international/diplomatic circumstances); however, the President has no right to demand or expect Congress to bend to his or her will.

    This President has grossly exceeded his Constitutional and legal authority by, for all intents and purposes, changing existing United States law entirely on his own without the consent of Congress. This is absolutely an impeachable offense regardless of whether impeachment is politically feasible. For the first time since Lincoln’s wholesale dispense of the Constitution, this President has created the precedent that the Chief Executive can, entirely on his own and without the consent of Congress, create new law. This is as scary a development as any I’ve seen in my, admittedly, relatively short lifetime. The use of executive orders in this way ought to be cause of concern for liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans alike regardless of whether or not you technically agree with the policy found therein.

    It is absolutely true that Obama isn’t the first President to exceed his Constitutional authority. Virtually every President, with a very small handful of exceptions, has exceeded their authority and done so relatively routinely -- especially since the establishment of the so-called ‘imperial Presidency.’ This goes quite a bit above and beyond what most Presidents prior to this one would have dared attempt. Even Richard Nixon was never so bold as to attempt to use executive orders to disregard the will of Congress quite to the degree that this President has on such a massive scale. This President has now legalized more people than jobs have been created for his entire term. We now shift a massive financial and infrastructural burden to local communities, counties, and states to deal with the results of this action. Millions of convicted felons who are guilty of everything from rape to gun smuggling for the cartels are now, effectively, safe from deportation. What would land you in a Mexican prison for decades is now completely legal in the United States, and we’ve sent the message that breaking our borders and our laws is perfectly acceptable so long as it is done so en-masse.

    No President has or should have this level of authority regardless of their political affiliation. It should scare and frighten every liberty loving American who respects and believes in the Constitution of the United States and our law. You may rush to defend this action simply because the man doing it has that (D) next to their name, but you should be utterly appalled.

    This action has no legal or Constitutional justification. Unfortunately, the Roberts Court has proven itself unwilling to risk the appearance of partisan preference in order to overturn overtly unconstitutional acts/law so it’s unlikely we’ll find remedy with SCOTUS. The only upside is that the next President can overturn this mess with one stroke of the pen moments after taking the oath of office. We can only hope he or she will be more judicious of their use of the executive order while being a better steward of the Constitution.
    Another view through conservative glasses. I posted a few days back how republicans/conservatives have no integrity. Obama has used the executive orders substantially less than any recent republican or democratic president, a rate that has not been as low as since Grover Cleveland - GROVER CLEVELAND! Your favorite wine is - it's different! Lincoln freed the slaves with an executive order. Your saint reagan issued 47 per year and, obama is at 33 per year. Reagan and bush 1 issued the SAME TYPE OF executive orders as what obama just did. But OH NO, IT'S DIFFERENT!

    What part of what he did is unconstitutional? What did bush do? Six years after bush promised to do something, bush signed a bill after the dems passed it in 2007. Proof republicans cannot govern.

  4. #4
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member SanJoaquinSooner's Avatar
    Location
    The Great San Joaquin Valley
    Posts
    6,625
    vCash
    1500

    Re: Reagan Amnesty vs Obama Amnesty

    Well Sic em... the difference is Reagan granted amnesty by signing the bill.

    Obama isn't granting amnesty, They aren't forgiven for being illegally present. Go ahead and get Michelle Bachmann elected and she can refuse to renew deferred action and deport them.

    It ain't amnesty if it can expire.

    BTW Sic em, have you been watching the TLC series, 90 day fiancé?
    Ingles solamente (¡no exepciones!)

  5. #5
    Baylor Ambassador SicEmBaylor's Avatar
    Location
    74434
    Posts
    21,870
    vCash
    500

    Re: Reagan Amnesty vs Obama Amnesty

    Quote Originally Posted by SanJoaquinSooner View Post
    Well Sic em... the difference is Reagan granted amnesty by signing the bill.

    Obama isn't granting amnesty, They aren't forgiven for being illegally present. Go ahead and get Michelle Bachmann elected and she can refuse to renew deferred action and deport them.

    It ain't amnesty if it can expire.

    BTW Sic em, have you been watching the TLC series, 90 day fiancé?
    I've seen one or two episodes. It horrifies me. I detest Bachmann -- there are much better options out there who would be as good or better on immigration. Ideally, I'd love to see Pat Buchanan in the White House....always have.

    My option is to either deport or shoot on sight at the border. Immigration must be stopped as if it were a war time foreign invasion. That goes for illegal immigrants while placing a total moratorium on legal immigration and putting an end to student visas at the college level as well as 'anchor spouses.'

    I want them gone. All of them. Now. Not tomorrow. Now. Out of here. Adios. Au revoir. Auf Wiedersehen. Do svidaniya. Zài jiàn.

  6. #6
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member SanJoaquinSooner's Avatar
    Location
    The Great San Joaquin Valley
    Posts
    6,625
    vCash
    1500

    Re: Reagan Amnesty vs Obama Amnesty

    Quote Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor View Post
    I've seen one or two episodes. It horrifies me. I detest Bachmann -- there are much better options out there who would be as good or better on immigration. Ideally, I'd love to see Pat Buchanan in the White House....always have.

    My option is to either deport or shoot on sight at the border. Immigration must be stopped as if it were a war time foreign invasion. That goes for illegal immigrants while placing a total moratorium on legal immigration and putting an end to student visas at the college level as well as 'anchor spouses.'
    I want them gone. All of them. Now. Not tomorrow. Now. Out of here. Adios. Au revoir. Auf Wiedersehen. Do svidaniya. Zài jiàn.
    I'd rather keep those on the finance visas and revoke the citizenships of the loser anchor spouses. Those foreigners deserve better than that.
    Ingles solamente (¡no exepciones!)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •