Posted on 01/02/2019 12:28:18 PM PST by SleeperCatcher
I think all Americans should have at least 85 years to decide if they actually want to pay income tax.
Perhaps Trump might agree with me.
It gets worse. DACA wasn’t even an EO, it was just a memo.
That’s right. It was a memo to Jeh Johnson at DHS. I don’t think Obama even signed the memo.
“Originally, he repealed it and that was undone.”
That didn’t happen: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bpublication_date%5D%5Bgte%5D=01%2F01%2F2017&conditions%5Bterm%5D=DACA
“If you’re frighted of what any POTUS may do, maybe think of how much power should be invested in the Executive branch in the first place?”
“Think about the power that you want vested in someone you like and admire...and then think of that exact same power vested in your worst political enemy. If you’re still comfortable with it, then vest that power. If not, then you shouldn’t be vesting that power in the first place.”
Roberts is a full blown lawless liberal. He orders his toilet paper with the constitution printed on it.
They are no longer "Democrats". They are MARXISTS and should be identified as such, always.
There he goes - threatening the Obama Judges again!
I’m on the side our government gave DACA to the folks, allowed them to attend our schools and join our military. It would be wrong now to take rhat away. I promote a pathway to citizenship for DACA but end all the other liberal policies affecting imigration. PDJT needs to get on TV and promote this with the deal of $25 billion over the next 5 years for border security. The people would support that.
Ah yes, along with a little lilac vegetal, does Precious John.
One of the reasons I love Trump - he points out that which the enemy wants to keep hidden and tells them if they win, he wins even bigger....
Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security : "To be clear: we do not hold that DACA could not be rescinded as an exercise of Executive Branch discretion. We hold only that here, where the Executive did not make a discretionary choice to end DACA—but rather acted based on an erroneous view of what the law required—the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under settled law. The government is, as always, free to reexamine its policy choices"
Napolitano v DHS: "All agree that a new administration is entitled to replace old policies with new policies [...] the new administration didn’t terminate DACA on policy grounds. It terminated DACA over a point of law, a pithy conclusion that the agency had exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority."
Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen: "Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program. [...] The question before the court is thus not whether Defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that Defendants have not done so. First, the decision to end the DACA program appears to rest exclusively on a legal conclusion that the program was unconstitutional and violated the APA and INA."
NAACP v. Trump: "while immigration policies are generally “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference,” there are good reasons to scrutinize a policy more carefully when it is based solely on an agency’s reading of domestic statutory law."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.