RP Listener Forum - Radio Paradise - eclectic commercial free Internet radio
[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

WTF??!! - sirdroseph - Dec 20, 2014 - 5:14am
 
How's the weather? - Proclivities - Dec 20, 2014 - 5:10am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Dec 20, 2014 - 5:05am
 
Putinphilia - sirdroseph - Dec 20, 2014 - 4:10am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - ashwell - Dec 20, 2014 - 3:53am
 
Last gas price paid? - marko86 - Dec 20, 2014 - 3:21am
 
To me , Torture is ............ - RichardPrins - Dec 20, 2014 - 1:25am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - BlueHeronDruid - Dec 19, 2014 - 9:38pm
 
Song stuck in your head? - PoundPuppy - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:36pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:36pm
 
Things You Thought Today - PoundPuppy - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:18pm
 
Geeky Jokes - haresfur - Dec 19, 2014 - 5:06pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - islander - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:38pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - islander - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:35pm
 
What makes you smile? - triskele - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:07pm
 
Make triskele smile - triskele - Dec 19, 2014 - 3:57pm
 
Israel - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 3:44pm
 
city kitties/cat doctor... rescues - olivertwist - Dec 19, 2014 - 3:04pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Alexandra - Dec 19, 2014 - 1:55pm
 
Breaking News - Coaxial - Dec 19, 2014 - 1:06pm
 
Quotations - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 11:47am
 
Cuba - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 10:41am
 
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK! - miamizsun - Dec 19, 2014 - 10:41am
 
Obama's Second Term - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 9:39am
 
2016 Elections - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 9:01am
 
~*Funny Cats*~ - DaveInVA - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:32am
 
Those lovable acronym guys & gals - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:21am
 
Ebola - miamizsun - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:20am
 
Art Show - Prodigal_SOB - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:09am
 
Movie Recommendation - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:17am
 
Let's build a city - miamizsun - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:10am
 
Oklahoma Questions and Points of Interest - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:45am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:05am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:58am
 
RPeep News You Should Know - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:41am
 
Russia - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:02am
 
hallucinogenic drugs - kurtster - Dec 19, 2014 - 2:18am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 12:23am
 
Venezuela - RichardPrins - Dec 18, 2014 - 6:45pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Dec 18, 2014 - 4:44pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - DaveInVA - Dec 18, 2014 - 3:49pm
 
Spambags on RP - BillG - Dec 18, 2014 - 1:14pm
 
When I need a Laugh I ... - ScottFromWyoming - Dec 18, 2014 - 1:04pm
 
The Global War on Terror - RichardPrins - Dec 18, 2014 - 11:59am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - ScottFromWyoming - Dec 18, 2014 - 11:12am
 
Holiday food gift ideas - bokey - Dec 18, 2014 - 11:01am
 
SIngle Payer Health Now! Sen. Bernie Sanders sums up - miamizsun - Dec 18, 2014 - 10:32am
 
Aliens: The Answer To Everything! - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 9:47am
 
And the good news is.... - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 9:41am
 
The War On You - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 9:17am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 9:02am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Coaxial - Dec 18, 2014 - 8:32am
 
::Famous Birthdays:: - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 8:30am
 
Me and Mrs. Jones: Got To Give It Up - Red_Dragon - Dec 18, 2014 - 8:19am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Dec 18, 2014 - 7:31am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - lily34 - Dec 18, 2014 - 6:10am
 
Music News - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 5:21am
 
Coffee - miamizsun - Dec 18, 2014 - 4:36am
 
Books read recently - miamizsun - Dec 18, 2014 - 4:23am
 
OUR CATS!! - bokey - Dec 17, 2014 - 8:22pm
 
Beer - JustineFromWyoming - Dec 17, 2014 - 7:29pm
 
What Puts You In the Christmas Mood? - triskele - Dec 17, 2014 - 5:56pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - swell_sailor - Dec 17, 2014 - 5:15pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Dec 17, 2014 - 4:15pm
 
Honduras - miamizsun - Dec 17, 2014 - 3:57pm
 
Help!!!!!!!! - miamizsun - Dec 17, 2014 - 3:31pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Dec 17, 2014 - 1:24pm
 
Things I Saw Today... - Coaxial - Dec 17, 2014 - 1:06pm
 
What the world needs now is .... - Proclivities - Dec 17, 2014 - 12:47pm
 
Things that piss me off - islander - Dec 17, 2014 - 12:42pm
 
Nebraska, anyone? - aflanigan - Dec 17, 2014 - 11:26am
 
Strange & Cool Music - sirdroseph - Dec 17, 2014 - 11:14am
 
Random Solutions - Random Advice - VV - Dec 17, 2014 - 11:09am
 
Oops! - Proclivities - Dec 17, 2014 - 10:44am
 
Amazing animals! - Red_Dragon - Dec 17, 2014 - 9:15am
 
(a public service of RP)
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Obama's Second Term Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 76, 77, 78  Next
Post to this Topic
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Dec 19, 2014 - 9:39am

 Steely_D wrote:

Oh, that reminds me.

THANKS, OBAMA!   CURRENT US PRESIDENT

 

FYT 

Steely_D
Drink your big black cow and get out of here
Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay, where the Cuban gentlemen sleep all day


Posted: Dec 19, 2014 - 9:35am

 sirdroseph wrote:
This indicates 2 things; Obama is not the progressive that many claim he is from the partisan left and he is also not the evil Socialist that the partisan right claims.

Obama Didn't Spread the Wealth,  He Concentrated It, Pew Study Finds



 
Oh, that reminds me.

THANKS, OBAMA! 
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Dec 19, 2014 - 4:54am

This indicates 2 things; Obama is not the progressive that many claim he is from the partisan left and he is also not the evil Socialist that the partisan right claims.

Obama Didn't Spread the Wealth,  He Concentrated It, Pew Study Finds




kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Dec 8, 2014 - 9:37pm

Obama is breaking another major promise, that he would have the US totally out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014.  Not only is he breaking it, he has authorized an additional 1,000 more to be there on top of the 10,000 staying on.

He kept his promise in Iraq.  Oh wait ... he got us out and now he's taking us back in, but with 'no boots on the ground' ...  Oh wait, we now have over 3,000 'no boots on the ground' in Iraq.

I guess it all makes sense though, considering his geopolitical knowledge is second to none ... 

 
porphyrius

porphyrius Avatar



Posted: Dec 6, 2014 - 10:17am

 winter wrote:

Because a lot of the jobs are either for the unskilled or the very skilled, and much of the US workforce persists in the moderately skilled sector. The labor market is changing, and too many Americans aren't changing with it: they want those factory jobs that are done by robots, or jobs in industries that are either fading or moving overseas.

I also think too many of us get wrapped up in the "job as identity" trap as opposed to "job as a means to an end". It's a lot easier to make changes if you start from the point that you are something other than doctor, engineer, foreman, whatever - you are what you do when you aren't at work, and all that working is just so you can pay the bills and be who you are. It's great if you can combine the two, and we should all try to do that, but at the end of the day you do what you have to in order to pay the bills. 

 
Don't agree or disagree, see merit in the statement, but, aren't we too stupid to understand all that? God, I hope not, but Gruber may be right....
winter
see clearly, act boldly, love fiercely, live richly
winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Dec 5, 2014 - 1:46pm

 DaveInVA wrote:

Even using the 70% claimed there thats still shows a majority of the jobs went to immigrants.

 
Because a lot of the jobs are either for the unskilled or the very skilled, and much of the US workforce persists in the moderately skilled sector. The labor market is changing, and too many Americans aren't changing with it: they want those factory jobs that are done by robots, or jobs in industries that are either fading or moving overseas.

I also think too many of us get wrapped up in the "job as identity" trap as opposed to "job as a means to an end". It's a lot easier to make changes if you start from the point that you are something other than doctor, engineer, foreman, whatever - you are what you do when you aren't at work, and all that working is just so you can pay the bills and be who you are. It's great if you can combine the two, and we should all try to do that, but at the end of the day you do what you have to in order to pay the bills. 
DaveInVA
Single, unwanted, unloved eccentric, crusty ol' fart with cats
DaveInVA Avatar

Location: In a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Dec 5, 2014 - 1:34pm

 winter wrote:

Perhaps not so much.

 
Even using the 70% claimed there thats still shows a majority of the jobs went to immigrants.
winter
see clearly, act boldly, love fiercely, live richly
winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Dec 5, 2014 - 1:26pm

 DaveInVA wrote: 
Perhaps not so much.
DaveInVA
Single, unwanted, unloved eccentric, crusty ol' fart with cats
DaveInVA Avatar

Location: In a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Dec 5, 2014 - 1:10pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:


doh!

 
doh! indeed, to bad none of them went to native Americans in either Bush or Obama's cases....
Red_Dragon
y ddraig goch ddyry gychwyn
Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Redneck Nation


Posted: Dec 5, 2014 - 1:02pm



doh!
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 4:05pm

 islander wrote:


 
Yep, the Democrats controlled both sides of Congress from 2006 to 2010.

That would be Reid and Pelosi.  The same folks in charge during Obama's first two years.

So your point is ? 


islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 1:05pm


kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 12:31pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

It's a pretty interesting demonstration of balance of power. We know that the 3 branches can wield some power, to which the other branches typically respond. My opinion is that a few years ago, when Obama said he did not have unilateral authority to take these actions, it was because there was still a glimmer of hope that the congress would exercise its power. So they did nothing, the executive did nothing, and lately, everything's gone to the judicial to make any decisions. Which is fine with most Republicans, right now. So now, my take is that congress has abdicated its responsibility to produce legislation that the executive can act upon, so it falls to the executive to do something. If the legislative wants that power back, they will have to generate something for the president to sign or veto. But absent that, the executive can/should/will continue to operate the country to the best of his ability. Because if not the executive, it will be the judicial. A pack of unelected elites, 6 Roman Catholic and 3 Jewish... that no one in America is comfortable with except for how, right now, it leans to the right. I admire about 3 of the justices, tolerate 4, despise 2. I'm sure most Americans have a similar breakdown.

Congress needs to get itself off the mat and solve some problems. Pass some laws, eliminate some laws, whatever. Until they do, they have no right to bitch when the boss scolds them and does their work for them.

 

 
Hmmm.   Let's start out with there are two divisions of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate.  The POTUS can propose legislation but cannot introduce legislation in either house.  A member of each division must do that.  That's two people minimum, one in each division / house.  Prior to 2010, both houses were controlled by the Democrats.  There was no action taken on immigration reform.  It was one of Obama's first year priorities, yet no Democrat introduced any legislation that got anywhere.  Prior to 2010, neither house passed a Budget, let alone bring one to the floor.  In 2010, when the House of Representatives flipped, the Repubs introduced the first Budget proposal in either house for the first time since Obama was elected.  Remember the ads showing Ryan pushing Grandma over the cliff in her wheel chair ?  The House sent it and others in successive years to the Senate where they just sat because Leader Reid would not bring them up for a vote.  We went over 1,000 days without Reid taking any action on the Budget which is the primary duty of Congress.  Only the Republicans complained.  It took the act of Sequestration to get a Budget passed.  Does anyone remember the Sequestration ?  This resulting Budget was the first one passed since Obama was elected.  Other than that we had nothing but debt ceiling drama and continuing resolutions.  Those seem to have been forgotten as well.

Then we had Obama's famous Jobs Bill.  It was introduced in the House and voted down before anyone in the senate even introduced it.  It sat for over 3 months IIRC before Reid finally introduced it because no other Democrat would.  Everyone was blaming the Republicans for stalling Obama's Jobs Bill when it was the Senate democrats who were stalling the Bill. Then it got voted down unanimously when Reid finally brought it up for a vote.  Yet everyone still blamed the Republicans.

I could bring up other examples of this phony obstructionism leveled at Republicans.  But these two are enough for the point being made.

That Congress either chooses to do nothing or does not pass a Bill that the POTUS wants is not grounds for the POTUS to act against the Constitution to get something he wants done.  Obama announced that he would take the action he announced last night after the election.  Why not before ?  Duh ...  He waited 6 years to get around to something that was so important, he made it a campaign promise for his first year in office.  And then after the last election during his last term.  It wasn't important enough before the election, but suddenly it got important after the election.  Hmmmm.

Congress is independent of the Executive Branch and equal to it.  Congress can pass Bills it wants, but the POTUS doesn't have to sign them and make them law.  If Congress doesn't give the POTUS the laws he / she wants, it does not give the POTUS an excuse to act on their own and create their own laws.  Its a two way street.  We shall soon see more Bills passed in the coming two years than the prior six, is my prediction.  Obama is going to get writers' cramp from either signing them or vetoing them.  Remember that gridlock in Congress is a Constitutional design to prevent bad laws from being passed.

And all this fuss over one Bill when Reid has refused to hold votes on 400 Bills sent over from the House ?  Paalleeese ....

That's all for now.  If my tone was terse, its only because I get that way when I have to go down memory lane to help people remember the things conveniently left out of discussions.  Nothing personal, just trying to get this stuff out.


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:48am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Hmm, he was acting in spite of an engaged congress. They just didn't want him doing the stuff he wanted to do. But yeah, in the absence of power, someone else will fill the gap. Congress back then was pretty weak too, so it's expected that the prez would do some freelancing. This is why it's important to elect sane people who understand how to cooperate, both to congress and to the presidency. All these people whose platform is "overturn Obama..." are just indicating they have nothing to offer. Likewise the people who run/ran just to counter Bush. 

 

I agree, I have also come to the conclusion we will not get this from either a Democrat or a Republican.
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints.
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:44am

 sirdroseph wrote:


So I guess you were good with Bush doing the same things, after all he was just trying to get stuff done.

 
Hmm, he was acting in spite of an engaged congress. They just didn't want him doing the stuff he wanted to do. But yeah, in the absence of power, someone else will fill the gap. Congress back then was pretty weak too, so it's expected that the prez would do some freelancing. This is why it's important to elect sane people who understand how to cooperate, both to congress and to the presidency. All these people whose platform is "overturn Obama..." are just indicating they have nothing to offer. Likewise the people who run/ran just to counter Bush. 
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:34am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Post too long to reply: So in other words, you do not agree with Obama in regards to law; 
 
I hate it when he feels like dissembling lawyer-speak is the best option, but his parsing (as far as I have read it, which is not very far or deep) seems agreeable to me. I agree that 3 years ago, he did not have the authority. I agree that now, he does. Nothing's changed, no. Except that the responsibility to act has shifted to him via the "to the best of my ability" pledge. 

 

So I guess you were good with Bush doing the same things, after all he was just trying to get stuff done. I find it amusing when Cheney criticizes Obama for anything.  I think it is jealousy, Obama is getting more done than Cheney did.


islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:28am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Post too long to reply: So in other words, you do not agree with Obama in regards to law; 
 
I hate it when he feels like dissembling lawyer-speak is the best option, but his parsing (as far as I have read it, which is not very far or deep) seems agreeable to me. I agree that 3 years ago, he did not have the authority. I agree that now, he does. Nothing's changed, no. Except that the responsibility to act has shifted to him via the "to the best of my ability" pledge. 

 
I've never been a fan of the 'executive authority' stuff. But like you said, at some point when you want to force action you need to do something.  I don't think this will go over well, but I don't think the republicans had any intention of acting to get anything done either. It's not like they were lining up to confirm appointees, or looking for opportunities to compromise on policy anyway.  So now we are on to 2016 - let's get the names out so we can start to tear them down.

I'm really hoping for Clinton/Bush. I think that might be a contest where a notable contingent would vote for a 3rd option. 
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints.
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:23am

Post too long to reply: So in other words, you do not agree with Obama in regards to law; 
 
I hate it when he feels like dissembling lawyer-speak is the best option, but his parsing (as far as I have read it, which is not very far or deep) seems agreeable to me. I agree that 3 years ago, he did not have the authority. I agree that now, he does. Nothing's changed, no. Except that the responsibility to act has shifted to him via the "to the best of my ability" pledge. 


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:14am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

It's a pretty interesting demonstration of balance of power. We know that the 3 branches can wield some power, to which the other branches typically respond. My opinion is that a few years ago, when Obama said he did not have unilateral authority to take these actions, it was because there was still a glimmer of hope that the congress would exercise its power. So they did nothing, the executive did nothing, and lately, everything's gone to the judicial to make any decisions. Which is fine with most Republicans, right now. So now, my take is that congress has abdicated its responsibility to produce legislation that the executive can act upon, so it falls to the executive to do something. If the legislative wants that power back, they will have to generate something for the president to sign or veto. But absent that, the executive can/should/will continue to operate the country to the best of his ability. Because if not the executive, it will be the judicial. A pack of unelected elites, 6 Roman Catholic and 3 Jewish... that no one in America is comfortable with except for how, right now, it leans to the right. I admire about 3 of the justices, tolerate 4, despise 2. I'm sure most Americans have a similar breakdown.

Congress needs to get itself off the mat and solve some problems. Pass some laws, eliminate some laws, whatever. Until they do, they have no right to bitch when the boss scolds them and does their work for them.

 

 

So in other words, you do not agree with Obama in regards to law;

President Barack Obama tried to rewrite history by claiming that his position had not changed regarding legal authority for executive orders on immigration that he is now considering.

During a press conference in Brisbane, Australia, Obama was asked what had changed since he made comments in 2013 that he was “not king” and “not the emperor” in response to questions about stopping deportations and providing temporary legal status to undocumented workers — much as he is now contemplating.

Obama replied that his “position hasn’t changed” and that the questions then were about him unilaterally enacting comprehensive immigration changes similar to the Senate bill that passed in 2013, but stalled in the House. But those questions in early 2013 weren’t about a comprehensive immigration overhaul, they were about Obama taking the kinds of executive actions he is now mulling.

Here’s how the question was raised in Australia on Nov. 16:

Jim Avila of ABC News, Nov. 16: Following up on immigration — in 2010, when asked by immigration reform advocates to stop deportations and act alone on providing legal status for the undocumented, you said, “I’m President, I’m not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” In 2013, you said, “I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” Mr. President, what has changed since then? And since you’ve now had a chance to talk since July with your legal advisors, what do you now believe are your limits so that you can continue to act as president and not as emperor or king?

Obama: Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. And getting a comprehensive deal of the sort that is in the Senate legislation, for example, does extend beyond my legal authorities. There are certain things I cannot do. There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws.

But the questions posed to Obama earlier were very specific. They asked the president whether he had the authority to do the very kinds of things he is considering now. For weeks, Obama has been saying that if Congress fails to act on immigration, he will “do everything I can lawfully with my executive authority to make sure that we don’t keep on making the system worse.” According to the New York Times, Obama plans to lift the threat of deportation from as many as 5 million immigrants in the country illegally — mainly the relatives of people already in the country legally — and to offer many of them work permits.

Obama’s action would not permanently change a person’s immigration status and would not provide a pathway to citizenship, as was proposed in the Senate immigration bill that stalled. Obama is correct that that kind of lasting, comprehensive immigration overhaul has to come through Congress. But that’s not what was asked of him in the interviews back in early 2013.

The “I’m not a king” comment came during an interview of Obama on Univision on Jan. 30, 2013.

Maria Elena Salinas of Univision: Now I know that you have reduced, this is another concern on Twitter, the number of deportations of non-criminals. However, in 2012 more than 184,000 non-criminals were deported. In the spirit of your push for immigration reform, would you consider a moratorium on deportations of non-criminals? Remember, these are your words: “This is not about policy. It’s about people.”

Obama: Well, I think it is important to remind everybody that, as I said I think previously, and I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law. The same is true with respect to the kinds of the length of time that people have to spend outside of the country when their spouses are already here for example.

The “I’m not the emperor of the United States” comment came during a Google Hangout interview two weeks later, on Feb. 14, 2013, (starting at the 18:42 mark).

Jacky Guerrero of California: Your administration has deported a record high number of 1.5 million undocumented immigrants, more than your predecessor. And I know your administration took some steps last year to protect unintended undocumented immigrants from being deported. However many people say that those efforts weren’t enough. What I’d like to know is what you’re going to do now until the time immigration reform is passed, to insure that more people aren’t being deported and families aren’t being broken apart.

Obama: Well, look Jacky, this is something that I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.

And what that means is is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. And what we have been able to do is to make sure that we’re focusing our enforcement resources on criminals, as opposed to somebody who’s here just trying to work and look after their families.

What we have tried to do is administratively reduce the burdens and hardships on families being separated. And what we’ve done is, obviously, pass the deferred action which made sure that the DREAMers, young people who were brought here and think of themselves as Americans, are American except for their papers, that they’re not deported.

Having said all that, we’ve kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can. And that’s why making sure we get comprehensive immigration reform done is so important.

In both cases, the president was asked about executive actions to remove the threat of deportations from a much larger group, to prevent the breakup of families — the very thing Obama is proposing to do now. Then, Obama said, “e’ve kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can.” Now, he believes he has the legal authority to do it.

In a similar analysis of Obama’s claim that his “position hasn’t changed,” Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler noted two other instances in which Obama previously claimed he lacked the authority to extend a freeze of deportations to a larger class of immigrants in the country illegally, or to grant temporary status.

The first came in a Univision town hall meeting on March 28, 2011, in which Obama was asked if he could “grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students.” Obama said that he could not.

Obama, 2011: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.

The other example cited by Kessler was an interview with Noticias Telemundo on Sept. 17, 2013, during which Obama was specifically asked if he would “at least consider unilaterally freezing the deportations for parents of deferred-action kids.” Again, Obama said he could not.

Obama, Sept. 17, 2013: My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said, here’s the law when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement.

Obama continued to say that he had made the legal argument that the government did not have the resources to deport so-called DREAMers — people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as young children. But he didn’t think it was legally possible to extend that policy beyond DREAMers.

“But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Obama said. “So that’s not an option. I do get a little worried that advocates of immigration reform start losing heart and immediately thinking, well, somehow there’s an out here — if Congress doesn’t act, we will just have the president sign something and that will take care of it, and we won’t have to worry about it. What I have said is that there is a path to get this done and that is through Congress.”

According to the New York Times, White House officials insist the evolution of Obama’s comments reflects a change in emphasis, rather than a change in opinion, and that at the time Obama was focused on convincing Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation.

We take no position on whether Obama has the legal authority to enact the kinds of immigration changes he is considering via executive authority. Ultimately, that may have to be decided in federal courts (as Republicans have threatened a legal challenge). But then, Obama said he lacked the legal authority to suspend deportation of family members. Now, he says he has just such legal authority.


ScottN
"Thought for today" has been postponed until tomorrow.
ScottN Avatar

Location: An inch above the K/T boundary. But smth near fracking still has appeal.
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aries
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:09am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

It's a pretty interesting demonstration of balance of power. We know that the 3 branches can wield some power, to which the other branches typically respond. My opinion is that a few years ago, when Obama said he did not have unilateral authority to take these actions, it was because there was still a glimmer of hope that the congress would exercise its power. So they did nothing, the executive did nothing, and lately, everything's gone to the judicial to make any decisions. Which is fine with most Republicans, right now. So now, my take is that congress has abdicated its responsibility to produce legislation that the executive can act upon, so it falls to the executive to do something. If the legislative wants that power back, they will have to generate something for the president to sign or veto. But absent that, the executive can/should/will continue to operate the country to the best of his ability. Because if not the executive, it will be the judicial. A pack of unelected elites, 6 Roman Catholic and 3 Jewish... that no one in America is comfortable with except for how, right now, it leans to the right. I admire about 3 of the justices, tolerate 4, despise 2. I'm sure most Americans have a similar breakdown.

Congress needs to get itself off the mat and solve some problems. Pass some laws, eliminate some laws, whatever. Until they do, they have no right to bitch when the boss scolds them and does their work for them.

 
My bolds

Well done, Scott. Succinct and deft summary, imo.
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 76, 77, 78  Next