Check out some similar questions!

NeedKarma · Mar 9, 2015, 12:22 PM

... or perhaps it's NOT unconstitutional.

paraclete · Mar 9, 2015, 02:22 PM

Tal I didn't say you shouldn't allow unskilled workers to immigrate, I said that you should decide on how many you need. I'm sure you have heard of mechanical picking machines in the agricultural industry but you would prefer to hire immigrant labour at slave wages. You don't see immigrant workers in your surprisingly low unemployment statistics, what do these statistics mean? That the employment situation has actually improved or that some of these workers have left. Once again the debate becomes are the laws you have enforceable and would new laws be enforceable. On the one hand you have complaints about racism in law enforcement and when the regime slackens on illegal immigrants you have complaints about racism. But wait we are talking about a different group. Now if you could just get that original group to go back to those low paid agricultural jobs you could then say you don't need migrant workers but it seems even the original slaves don't want to do those jobs

tomder55 · Mar 9, 2015, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

... or perhaps it's NOT unconstitutional.

Article 2 Sec 3 . It's called the 'Take Care Clause' or the 'Faithful Execution Clause' .

"he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, "

He also unconstitutionally violates the separation of power by making law when the Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with “all legislative powers herein granted.”

NeedKarma · Mar 9, 2015, 04:48 PM

Wow, could you be more vague? LOL! You could apply that to absolutely anything that you disagree with.

Face it, you're wrong and that's why it hasn't been challenged successfully by the repubes.

paraclete · Mar 9, 2015, 05:00 PM

Come on Karma you know their system is unworkable without a tame parliament

talaniman · Mar 9, 2015, 05:01 PM

It all amounts to a republican smokescreen to undermine the workings of government to secure the rights and freedoms of its minorities citizens, drummed up out of fear of a rapidly changing demographic, that is shrinking the power, and influence of its former majority. They dehumanize and vilify minorities to justify, and enforce their own racism out of fear as a black man in a white house of power is but a culmination of their long held nightmare that they no longer got it like they had it.

Fortunately, they only are a very small core group who holler in fear of the many changes being shoved down their throats which they can never approve of but are powerless to stop it but noisy in their dying throws of ignorance.

paraclete · Mar 9, 2015, 07:28 PM

You have made this about race Tal, do you think a white democrat would have faired better? Social change is generational, some of the things you do today would have been unthinkable fifty years ago in an age of poor communications. What has happened is the electorate is better informed and when they make informed decisions they will get rid of what they don't like, whether it is the person in the White House or entrenched attitudes elsewhere. You can be sure they don't like being told something can be done and then you have a bunch of killjoys blocking it

tomder55 · Mar 10, 2015, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Wow, could you be more vague? LOL! You could apply that to absolutely anything that you disagree with.

Face it, you're wrong and that's why it hasn't been challenged successfully by the repubes.

These are serious issues that separate government by the consent of the people and tyranny . You would not accept an imperial executive .
As for the Repubics......the leadership lacks the testicular fortitude . Speaker Bonehead has made it clear he doesn't like to make waves . He and McConnell are like the glum curmudgeon elders of the town in 'Footloose' . All they really do is show the appearance of opposition while at the same time defanging Congress of all it's constitutional tools to counter the emperor's power grabs .
They should've been replaced this session.
In their defense ,this has been a long time coming .Congress for years has surrendered their powers to the executive and the bureaucratic state . Justice Thomas recently wrote about the problem in his dissent of 'Dept of Transportation v . of American Railroads' .

In this case, Congress has permitted a corporation subject only to limited control by the President to create legally binding rules. These rules give content to private railroads’ statutory duty to share their private infrastructure with Amtrak. This arrangement raises serious constitutional questions to which the majority’s holding that Amtrak is a governmental entity is all but a non sequitur. These concerns merit close consideration by the courts below and by this Court if the case reaches us again.
We have too long abrogated our duty to enforce the separation of powers required by our Constitution. We have overseen and sanctioned the growth of an administrative system that concentrates the power to make laws and the power to enforce them in the hands of a vast and unaccountable administrative apparatus that finds no comfortable home in our constitutional structure. The end result may be trains that run on time (although I doubt it), but the cost is to our Constitution and the individual liberty it protects.

Congress for too long has delegated their powers away . I understand why a President would be inclined to grab even more power from the Legislative branch if Congress at best makes feeble protests against it . They have the power to stop him if they'd use it.

paraclete · Mar 10, 2015, 03:59 AM

They can impeach him Tom but has he given them cause

tomder55 · Mar 10, 2015, 04:11 AM

Nixon was impeached for less .....as was Clintoon.

NeedKarma · Mar 10, 2015, 05:13 AM

Nixon was impeached for less .....as was Clintoon.

So much wrong here.
Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned.

He and his party did such things as bugging the offices of political opponents, he had a secret taping system that recorded his conversations and phone calls in the Oval Office amongst other dirty tricks. He was a crook and a bully.

Bill Clinton was never impeached either.

talaniman · Mar 10, 2015, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

You have made this about race Tal, do you think a white democrat would have faired better?

For some it IS all about race, and the institutions that allow it. A small "group" using your own word, but vociferous, and persistent. Make no mistake they are exploited for their HATE, that's based in FEAR, and willful ignorance that blocks logic and rational thought. There is no negotiations or debate with such obstenence, especially if the hate is continually fed with more FEAR.

Would a white democrat have fared better? Probably NOT, but the still would have used race as a flavor to feed the fearful. They have before, but you wouldn't know about the southern strategy, or the Willie Horton ads, but the facts can be checked, and verified Clete, rather easily.

tomder55 · Mar 10, 2015, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So much wrong here.
Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned.

He and his party did such things as bugging the offices of political opponents, he had a secret taping system that recorded his conversations and phone calls in the Oval Office amongst other dirty tricks. He was a crook and a bully.

Bill Clinton was never impeached either.

you are correct about Nixon . Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly voted to send the impeachment articles to the floor . He would've been both impeached and convicted .

Clintoon was indeed impeached for lying to a Grand Jury . The Senate refused to convict him .

How was Nixon recording his conversations an impeachable offense? I guess you've never heard the recordings from Kennedy's oval office . Nixon was guilty of conducting a cover-up and should've been impeached for that . The emperor has conducted any number of cover-ups and stonewalling investigations from his many scandals. If Nixon was responsible for the actions of his officers then so is the emperor .

A small "group" using your own word, but vociferous, and persistent. Make no mistake they are exploited for their HATE, that's based in FEAR, and willful ignorance that blocks logic and rational thought. There is no negotiations or debate with such obstenence, especially if the hate is continually fed with more FEAR.

speaking of Al Sharpton again ?

talaniman · Mar 10, 2015, 10:07 AM

Speaking of Ferguson police again,

http://www.newsweek.com/15-most-outr...-report-311434

And lets add this too, just for YOU CLETE,

University of Oklahoma expels 2 students over racist video; investigation ongoing | Fox News

Social change is generational, some of the things you do today would have been unthinkable fifty years ago in an age of poor communications. What has happened is the electorate is better informed and when they make informed decisions they will get rid of what they don't like, whether it is the person in the White House or entrenched attitudes elsewhere

Unthinkable fifty years ago that swift actions would be taken in UOK, but Obama did win re election so we remain hopeful true change and social justice will eventually win out, despite the negative noise that says otherwise.

paraclete · Mar 10, 2015, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Unthinkable fifty years ago that swift actions would be taken in UOK, but Obama did win re election so we remain hopeful true change and social justice will eventually win out, despite the negative noise that says otherwise.

I think we can endorse that comment Tal

paraclete · Mar 12, 2015, 04:21 AM

BBC News - Ferguson police shot during protest

Once again someone has demonstrated that the only way to solve problems is at the point of a gun. This demonstrates an appalling attitude in the community. If I were a cop I would definitely not be leaning on the side of not being the first to use my gun. It solves nothing. They have claimed the scalp of the police chief and still they are not satisfied. Now they have blood are they satisfied? What will happen when a suspect is apprehended? More riots? More intolerance? More disrespect of the law?

talaniman · Mar 12, 2015, 06:21 AM

The action of ONE represents the whole community? Ridicules!! The protesters were ducking too! How do YOU know the shots weren't some WHITE racists, or criminal stirring up trouble?

You went from someONE, to THEY with no facts, just rant!

tomder55 · Mar 12, 2015, 09:27 AM

University of Oklahoma expels 2 students over racist video; investigation ongoing | Fox News

The action of ONE represents the whole community? Ridicules!!

thanks for making my point

talaniman · Mar 12, 2015, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

thanks for making my point

The actions of the frat boys has proven systemic, was that your point?

paraclete · Mar 12, 2015, 02:28 PM

Tal if a police chief resigns why is this an occasion for protest and riot. Just a lot of malcontents who think everything should be done to suit them. There was a shooter, perhaps more than one but neither you or I expect that shooter came from some disaffected white group. Do you think the shooter wasn't part of the crowd, or went unseen? he was embedded in the crowd to use the words of a report. If someone other than the protesters wanted to stir up trouble they would have shot a protester. No, this is one more piece of racial violence from a community that has left reason behind and they weren't even targetting local police, it wasn't personal but premeditiated.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-1...e-shot/6311648