Until now the President told Hispanics that he did not have the constitutional authority to implement the decision he announced this week . What changed ? Did he always have the authority and chose not to use it until he could cynically impact the 2012 elections ? Or , does he NOT have the authority ,and this is a cynical if not desperate attempt to hold his 2008 coaltion together ?

It should be clear from the Title of this OP that I think it's the later . He does NOT have such authority .

But what is interesting to me is the way he is trying to hold together the fringes of his coalition. His contraception gambit was an attempt to hold the woman vote. His efforts for the gay vote like chosing to not enforce DOMA ,the suspension of DADT ,his presumably agonizing evolution on his gay marriage position again reeked of desperation . Other moves include his trying to appease both labor and environmentalists on his Keystone Pipeline decision ( approve the construction of the pipeline for a section of the pipeline that is useless unless the rest of the pipeline is approved).

He won because he had the backing of the labor force ;and recent weeks have proven to them that when push comes to shove ;he doesn't have their back.
He did not go to bat for them in the Walker recall election even though he campaigned in neighboring States in the week leading up to the vote.
The AFL-CIO noticed .
AFL-CIO Pulling Funds From Obama Campaign - Washington Whispers (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/13/afl-cio-redeploying-funds-from-obama-campaign-to-advocacy-and-infrastructure)

With the erosion of support from key pillars of his coalition ,the President must create a new one... thus his temporary illegal immigrant amnesty decision . Obama's Justice Dept is also suing to stop every attempt at preventing vote fraud around the country, including the removal of known foreign nationals who have voted illegally from the voter rolls.Thus the creation of a new voting block

It is a gambit that could succeed or fail.

2004 ,facing a close recall vote ,Hugo Chavez gave citizenship to 2 million illegals living in Venezuela . That more secured him his Presidency for life . But such a move can also back fire . 2003 ,also facing a recall vote , California Governor Gray Davis issued millions of drivers licenses to illegals in an attempt to win over the Latino vote. That move angered Californians and Davis was recalled .

The question is... is the United States more like California or 3rd world Venezuela ?

There is risk in this gambit for the President. It has been pointed out that this constituency competes with labor for jobs. Perhaps that is why it is a temporary amnesty conveniently times for renewal the next election.cycle. In fact ;all his recent decisions puts stress on the competing interests within his coalition. Gay marriage vs traditional Blacks. Anti-pipeline environmentalists versus blue collar Union workers. Now young illegal aliens vs unemployed youth vote. What will the Occupiers do now that they have been thrown under the bus?

Now young illegal aliens vs unemployed youth vote. Hello tom:

You're sounding more and more hysterical every day.. But, everything is cool. Obama didn't tell the illegal aliens they could vote.

excon

No he didn't . But you know ,and I know ,that this gambit is a crass ploy to energize a voting block he doesn't care about. You've pointed that out on more than a couple occasions. I'm not hysterical ;but this move by the President is flailing desperation .

To be or not to be that is the question, whether it is better to deport or not to deport or is that disport

It should be clear from the Title of this OP that I think it's the later . He does NOT have such authority . Hello again, tom:

As I pointed out on another thread, Obama is on pace to deport more illegal aliens in his first term, than Bush did during his entire presidency...

So, tell me WHICH president abused the law, and WHICH one didn't?? Why didn't you complain about Bush giving illegals a pass?

excon

Let me go back to the tedious archives of this site and I'll link to the times I did indeed critique the Bush policies about immigration.

Let me go back to the tedious archives of this site and I'll link to the times I did indeed critique the Bush policies about immigration.Hello again, tom:

No need. I believe you. If you want me to say that there's a political contingent to his announcement, I will.

excon

I think it is the ONLY reason for the announcement . The Latinos who are celebrating this should look closely to the President's words ,and believe him when he says "temporary" .

Ex by the way your instincts on the President are correct regarding immigration reform. All one needs to do is study his role in killing the 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 to understand how cynical this latest move truly is.

Let me go back to the tedious archives of this site and I'll link to the times I did indeed critique the Bush policies about immigration.

Regarding the quote of Tocqueville, I would just point out that it dates to 1856. We have managed so far, and our current dysfunctional government is not more so than at other points in the life of our Rrepublic. Remember the fatricidal fights of our founding fathers; and how about the opposition to the New Deal, the war on poverty, and civil rights. Oh, and let's not forget the Civil War. My points is yes by al means let's find a way to persuade Congress to have an amicable conversation, ut no need to despair; we have gone through a lot worse.

bond1000 ,
Welcome to Current Events . Indeed I have pointed out on numerous occasions that the interamural squabbles at times have been much worse than today. My classic example is that Hamilton lost his life over such disagreements .
Had I been around in the 1930s ,I believe I would've been one of the critics of Roosevelt ;and yet I would've supported him fully in the war effort.
I have no problem with the current ideological divide .I welcome it .I think that group think consensus is damaging to the nation . I think that the disagreements today can clearly be traced all the way back as early as the 2nd Washington Adm . And maybe even earlier

. I think the Toqueville quote is as valid today as it was then . I think the largess that Congress distrubutes to purchase votes is the seed corn of destruction for the nation.

Back to the original question

The question is... is the United States more like California or 3rd world Venezuela ?

The US is unlike either of these places since neither have a President for life. Oh happy day says Tom. We can get back to boondoggling our constituents de Tocqueville would like that

Back to the original question


The US is unlike either of these places since neither have a President for life. Oh happy day says Tom. we can get back to boondoggling our constituents de Tocqueville would like that

No, but the tactic was the same.

Speech it was ever so, buying the electorate is a political preoccupation, the use of OPM is important to a politician

It's much more than that... It's ignoring laws he's sworn to uphold (Article II, Sec. 3 "... take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." );and inventing laws when it suits his purpose .
Laws are passed by Congress and signed into law by the President . Article 1, Sec. 8 states that "Congress shall have the Power To ... establish ...uniform Rule of Naturalization." 'The Dream Act' was not passed by Congress and yet the President decided he'd implement the provisions .

There is the Chavez comparison. The fact that it is a blatant election year ploy to garner favor with a segment of the electorate just means it is a cynical power grab.

Tom this is what you get when you don't elect a mainstream politician

Tom this is what you get when you don't elect a mainstream politician

I didn't elect him, I didn't drink the Koolaid.

Hello:

What Jon Stewart said. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-19-2012/democalypse-2012---pander-express-edition---obama-s-immigration-reform)

Besides, I think I saw somewhere a righty was complaining about how MSNBC distorts stuff.. To that I say, watch the video carefully.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Bond no one cares if the conversation is amicable so long as some progress is achieved but as congress is the opposite of progress not much hope of that

It's much more than that ... It's ignoring laws he's sworn to upholdHello again, tom:

Let me see.. If Obama has deported MORE illegals in his first term than George W. Bush did in his entire presidency, and NO new immigration law was passed, ONE of 'em wasn't enforcing the law he was sworn to uphold...

I wonder which one it was...

excon

I of course publicly broke my support for Bush when it came to his immigration policies ;including the 'shamnesty ' Z -Visas . But unlike Obama ;he didn't try to do it unconstitutionally by-passing Congress.

Somebody has been watching too much Fox news, or maybe the remote needs some batteries. Why are we debating FOX fallacies?

?? Do you have something useful to contribute to the debate ?

he didn't try to do it unconstitutionally by-passing Congress.Hello again, tom:

I guess you missed my post when I compared Obama to Bush regarding how they ENFORCED current immigration law.. I asked, if Obama is deporting more illegal aliens during his first term, than Bush did during his ENTIRE term, WHO, unconstitutionally, bypassed Congress??

excon

??? Do you have something useful to contribute to the debate ?

You got your facts wrong again. If you are going to throw rocks, at least be accurate.

We can debate FACTS, not made up FAIRY tales. Hispanics seem to like his political gambit as you call it, and didn't like Romney, or the GOP that much from the get go, before he made this gambit. Its an election year, and two guys are campigning, but we don't hear a peep about the Romney lies to get elected.

What fact do you dispute ? The garbage about Fox you can leave out .

Hello again, tom:

I guess you missed my post when I compared Obama to Bush regarding how they ENFORCED current immigration law.. I asked, if Obama is deporting more illegal aliens during his first term, than Bush did during his ENTIRE term, WHO, unconstitutionally, bypassed Congress???

excon


I don't get your point. Bush tried to change the law through Congress . Obama flagrantly by-passed a Congress that had already debated and rejected the provisions that Obama is unconstitutionally taking . I did not dispute either Bush or Obama's power to enforce existing law. The numbers deported are irrelevant . Can you show me a directive by Bush to ICE to ignore the law ? I don't think you can.

He has full authority to prioritize where the resources are focused on in any cabinet under his discretion within the law. When the congress doesn't or can't act, he did.

GOP at a Loss for Message on DREAM Act : Roll Call News (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_154/GOP-at-Loss-for-Message-on-DREAM-Act-215506-1.html)


Immigration ripped Republicans apart when a comprehensive bill reached the Senate floor under President George W. Bush, and the new House Republican majority hasn't shown an inclination to take on the issue either.

So none of this accusing the guy who is doing something of being wrong when you guys are determined to do NOTHING!

Election year BS? Okay both sides are doing it so don't get pompous. But I will point out that republicans are making good on there promise to make a priority of making this a one turn president, and matter what it takes. Voter suppression, gridlock, filibusters, or anything they can find.

Anything but do there jobs.

I'll state my facts again
Article 1, Sec. 8 states that "Congress shall have the Power To ... establish ...uniform Rule of Naturalization." 'The Dream Act' was not passed by Congress and yet the President decided he'd implement the amnesty provisions . That is not "prioritize where the resources are focused " it is an executive making law ,faithlessly executing his office in contempt of the Constitution.

So none of this accusing the guy who is doing something of being wrong when you guys are determined to do NOTHING!
Congress has 3 times rejected the amnesty that the President is doing . You can't blame them for doing nothing when they stop bad legislation.

That's the problem Tom, bad has nothing to do with it, as they will stop anything, good or bad. So nothing gets done, and the rock throwing continues.

You know and I know that this move is craven election year politiking by the President. The fact that it has 2 year renewal cycle conveniently timed in election years( the carrot ) ;and as EX pointed out ,the President already showed the Hispanic community his heavy hand (the stick) shows how disengenous it really is. I won't bother showing you the Youtube clip of the President telling Hispanics not too long ago that his hands are constitutionally tied from making the very decision he made last week.

Don't bother unless you have the unedited version where he said he WOULD do what he just did. Its at the end, but was conveniently edited.

But of course that's such a small silly fact.

Sad you fell for it.

Still relying on Media Matters for your news, eh? Certainly looks word for word (http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/16/president-constitutional-authority/) to me.

J9isifcg9ik


With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-univision-town-hall), 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.

As for the end of that quote, here you go.


That does not mean, though, that we can't make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who've engaged in criminal activity. It also doesn't mean that we can't strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more fair, more just, and ultimately would help young people who are here trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country.

I must have missed the part where he said he would buck the constitution anyway. So did Media Matters.

I wonder how these illegals will prove their qualifications for Obamnnesty(under the age of 30 who were brought to the US before they were 16 years old ,have lived here for at least five continuous years, have no criminal record and either are now attending high school, graduated from high school, earned a GED or served in the military.) Maybe they will produce the stolen or forged id they've been using for 15-30 years ?

Not sure where to put this since Ms. Pelosi seems to be so far out of her mind it just fits everywhere.

First, in her outrage over the Holder contempt vote she said she could have arrested Karl Rove and put him in the House prison at any time back when he was charged with contempt.


"I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day," Pelosi said to laughter, during a sit-down with reporters. "I'm not kidding. There's a prison here in the Capitol ... If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him."

And today it's all about voter suppression (http://washingtonexaminer.com/pelosi-holder-contempt-vote-about-voter-suppression-not-fast-and-furious/article/2500261). I mean seriously, is there any reason too lame to charge Republicans with voter suppression?


“They’re going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states… This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of Republicans.”

Pelosi denied that Operation Fast and Furious is the real cause of the investigation and contempt charge. “These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote,” she said of her congressional colleagues. “It is connected. It’s clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name.”

“These folks want a plutocracy where instead of the choice of the many the checks of the very very few determine the outcomes of elections,” she said.

Geez Brunhilda, you really don't think maybe the fact that thousands of guns are loose on both sides of the border with no telling how many killed with those weapons - not to mention a dead Border Patrol agent whose family wants and deserves some answers - and your AG has stonewalled and blamed others and retracted testimony (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/another-retraction-holder-withdraws-claim-that-bushs-attorney-general-knew-about-gunwalking/) just might have a little bit to do with it?

You guys amaze me to no end, he said his policy was a stop gap until the congress get its act together, it's a policy procedure no more, no less, unlike Reagans amnesty. Here is the video. Note the original aired in November 2011, so this isn't anything new.

Jon Stewart Skewers Fox News For Using Edited Obama Video To Criticize Immigration Policy | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-skewers-fox-news-for-using-edited-obama-video-to-criticize-immigration-policy/)

As for the voter suppression, nice try but republicans in Florida, county officials who nixed that BS as unfair, and its been shown that that despite evidence of wide spread voter fraud, the southern states have ran around the rules again, with there faulty lists, and right around an election they pull there bull to shave as many minorities and CONVICTS as they can

2004 United States election voting controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies)

That's why they are still under federal authority as are the other states in the south.


Geez Brunhilda, you really don't think maybe the fact that thousands of guns are loose on both sides of the border with no telling how many killed with those weapons - not to mention a dead Border Patrol agent whose family wants and deserves some answers - and your AG has stonewalled and blamed others and retracted testimony just might have a little bit to do with it?

Issa already has all the evidence he needs to conclude what happened and after two years he has only called one witness. Election year grandstanding? I think so.

His "retractions" when he got caught in a lie is the only reason that the House has pressed him on the documents . Pelosi is insane . She and the Dems had this fanciful notion that it was Rove who outed Plame.when in fact it was Richard Armitage.

Maybe Pelosi forgets that she would've needed to go through basically the same procedure that the House is doing with Holder (committee vote followed by a floor vote ) to get a contempt charge against him. Then what ? Would she order the Sgt Of Arms of the Capitol police to frog march him into her prison on the hill ? Maybe they would write him a ticket if he double parked.

Sarcasm aside Tom, Issa is a fool who thinks by putting a bad mark on Holder the Republican plan to bring down the president is that much stronger. He doesn't care that Holder back tracked after he got the facts and shut the operation down, and fired people in his present form. That's why he has this 2nd amendment conspiracy theory all over the place today.

Of course you righties don't even question that none of these ATF agents and supervisors were never called to testify. Naw, then we get facts about what's going on, and how this program was started under BUSH, as usual.

We could hold some hearing on voter suppression though, naw repubs never investigate there own, just everybody else. Maybe we needed Issa to kiss Dimons' butt, like the rest of them did on camera, or the oil guys after they screwed up the gulf.

SHAM for the cameras.

“I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this,” “All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen.”“Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”“You know, if I had a son, he'd look like (Brian Terry ),” ....“I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Yeah that's right Jay Carney... the name of the slain agent is Brian Terry... try to remember that the next time you try to tell us the adm is doing all it can to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious.

Good to know you libs care nothing about the rule of law, not to mention helping a family get answers on why their son is dead.

Good to know you libs care nothing about the rule of law, not to mention helping a family get answers on why their son is dead.Hello again, Steve:

Slow down, podner...

IF getting answers for the family was Issa's objective, you'd think he'd call the head of ATF to ask him WHY he did that crap. You'd think he'd subpoena the previous Attorney General who was running the show WHEN the program called Fast and Furious started... You'd THINK he'd call the head of the Phoenix office of the ATF who, on his OWN, ran this program...

But, he DIDN'T. He's not interested in what they have to say. Now I don't know about you, but to me it's OBVIOUS what his intention is.. At least, it's obvious to SOME of us. The rest want to believe the conspiracy promulgated by FOX News.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

You must have missed the part where Holder retracted his statement (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/another-retraction-holder-withdraws-claim-that-bushs-attorney-general-knew-about-gunwalking/) blaming Mukasey. Nice try but that blame Bush thing has already been blown out of the water by Holder himself.

Oh, and Melson testified to Congress (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/atf-chief-testifies-before-congress-in-secret-over-controversial-gun-program/) under a deal. You forget that he wanted to testify before the committee but Holder did not want that to happen.

Next excuse?

You forget that he wanted to testify before the committee but Holder did not want that to happen.

Next excuse?Hello again, Steve:

So, you think Holder controls who is called to testify?? Really?

excon

I don't know how this OP became about Fast And Furious . But since its here now ,then I want to correct something I've read twice already... the fallacy that Fast And Furious began under the Bush Adm. Not so.

There was a program under the Bush called, Operation Wide Receiver. Operation Wide Receiver was run out of Tucson, AZ, between 2006 and 2007.300-500 guns were sold. In Operation Fast and Furious, 7x as many weapons were placed into the hands of the cartels in an operation done without the Mexican Government's knowledge.

Operation Wide Receiver was a controlled delivery of guns in cooperation with the Mexican Government with the sole purpose of tracking the guns. In a controlled delivery, law enforcement watches to see that their target goes through the steps of a crime, to see intent, and then interdict the guns and make an arrest. ATF put actual tracking devices in the guns. As Operation Wide Receiver was done in coordination with the Mexican Government, Mexican law enforcement officials were supposed to be waiting on their side of the border to interdict and make arrests; but in some cases they failed to do so.
Unfortunately, since Mexican law enforcement failed to interdict all the weapons, the batteries on some of the tracking devices later died and the ATF lost the ability to track the weapons. The program was later shut down long before Fast And Furious began..

So no, Operation Fast and Furious did NOT begin under the Bush Administration. The deaths of Border Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata are not traceable in any way to Operation Wide Receiver.

It doesn't matter how you play it this was snafu and this sort of thinking is snafu and the Committee has the right to investigate and find out how it became so messed up

it doesn't matter how you play it this was snafu and this sort of thinking is snafu and the Committee has the right to investigate and find out how it became so messed up

Yup . The real problem is the cover-up led by the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. Let's see what happens if the House charges him with contempt . Will he turn himself in ? Who will enforce their charge ?

We had a similar potential constitutional crisis during Watergate . If Nixon refused to comply with the court order to turn over the White House tapes , it could've gotten dicey.

You don't think most lawyers are snakes? I never used the word "control," I said "Holder did not want that to happen." Stalling, he's been stalling all along quite obviously and the part about Melson was right there in the article:


According to sources close to the investigation, ATF Acting Direction Ken Melson had previously wanted to testify before the oversight committees but Justice Department officials sought to delay his testimony.

And that's part (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alcohol-tobacco-firearms-chief-ken-melson-clean-atf/story?id=14009585#.T-R-vVKQPKc) of his testimony:


The acting head of the ATF voluntarily appeared before two congressional oversight committees and revealed that senior Justice Department officials tried to limit his communications with Congress about an investigation into a controversial ATF program known as "Fast and Furious," according to a letter from the heads of two oversight committees.

Are you going to retract your previous erroneous statements like Holder or are you just gust going to stall and hold up shiny things like Holder the administration does?

I don't know how this OP became about Fast And Furious .

Sorry, that was me via Pelosi's lunatic ravings.

Hello again,

The Democrats COULD have provoked a Constitutional crisis when Bush covered up for Karl Rove, and Josh Bolton... But, they didn't. They KNOW that a Constitutional crisis should be reserved for times when REAL crooks like Nixon, are actually endangering the Republic.

The Republicans don't know that. In fact, they actually LIKE playing chicken with our country.. I don't know why.

excon

You think Obama's first amendment destroying contraceptive mandate is a good thing and you accuse us of playing chicken with the country?

The Democrats COULD have provoked a Constitutional crisis when Bush covered up for Karl Rove, and Josh Bolton... But, they didn't.
They would've lost in court. Rove and Bolton were NOT officers of the Administration confirmed by Congress like the AG is . The President used executive privilege because they ,as his closest advisers ,were giving the President personal council . That is historically a recognized implied power of the Presidency.A power I fully agree with when it is used properly.
However ,the President is not protecting either personal communications (unless he was personally involved ) ,or national secrets . He is covering for the chief law enforcement officer of the land who is stonewalling on a reasonable request.
The question you should be asking is ;why didn't Bush use executive privilege when Alberto Gonzalez testified ? Because it wasn't proper for him to use it there .

The Republicans are not issuing this contempt charge lightly .