Posted on 08/26/2014 8:12:52 AM PDT by Rusty0604
As President Barack Obama considers enacting executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, USA Today urged him not to do it, saying it would "set a dangerous precedent" for future presidents to act unilaterally on a host of "significant matters without the assent of Congress."
After maligning Republicans and reiterating unproven liberal talking points--like Republicans need to pass amnesty to appeal to Hispanic voters--USA Today reiterated that Obama is "thinking about going it alone" by "greatly expanding" the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
USA Today conceded that "Congress is the only appropriate venue for adopting such sweeping changes in policy" and noted that "Obama himself has said so in the past."
Opponents of executive amnesty--like U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow--have emphasized that granting work permits to millions of illegal immigrants would only harm American workers, especially black workers on the bottom of the economic ladder.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Its damn near unanimous.
And I pray this issue blows up in Washington DC's face.
Sorry it’s already loaded into a teleprompter
All these mid-east countries can flood the streets and demand their leader step down. I say we do it here, millions of marchers in DC calling for Obama to resign. He wouldn’t get his Constitutional crisis impeachment dream, the American people would feel like they were doing something in spite of Congress, it would be great!
Really.
Serious Question.
Doesn't that dismantle the very foundation of our so-called "Rule of Law?"
And where can it stop in the future? And if can be reversed in the future, why not now?
The GOPe wants amnesty, increased legal immigration, and more guest workers. They may disagree with the means, but they approve the ends. Let's see what kind of reaction comes from the GOPe. If it is about process, then the country is finished.
Yes it does.
So now what?
I trust no one on amnesty. As far as I’m concerned, every single one of them in DC has his/her price.
What I don’t understand is; why do Dems want long term power over our country if it is just another third world banana republic?
Doesn't matter. The King will do whatever W/O any consequences. I seriously think that he could EO the president term limits & run again AND get away with it.
I would avoid such large crowds once the mood turns angry. They will be infiltrated by agents provocateur who will start shoving and shooting to discredit "anti-government extremists" and to justify emergency measures including suspension of rights and warrantless detention. It is a very old trick, and tyrants read history.
Well said..
Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election alone can reverse.
The next president will be sworn in with un-enumerated arbitrary powers. Whatever descriptive form of government one wishes to use for America, ‘republic’ isn't one of them
I guess the party leaders in USSR lived well while enjoying seeing the rest of the people suffer. Same now in NK.
World view takes a back seat to avarice.
Avarice and ambition are well rewarded in Washington.
Dilute the rewards of either, and the incentive to scratch and claw to wealth and power offices in Rome-on-the-Potomac will evaporate.
Our freedom and future depend on it.
That’s the case in most of the Third World. The rich and powerful live in gated communities and the rest of the people scuffle for government handouts.
So how do you do that? Be specific, including the reality of achieving it.
So far, three state legislatures have passed identical applications to congress, and a statute to govern their delegates.
Mission of the Assembly of State Legislatures.
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.