Lawlessness
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
And at the same time LEGAL immigrants are being kicked out.
See my thread: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95999
Amnesty activists block bus from deporting illegals
Obama: If I could bypass Congress on immigration, “I would do so”
GOP Representative: Pay hike for federal workers violates constitution
White House warns of congressional bypass
Holder can't explain constitutional basis for executive orders
Oregon won't defend gay-marriage ban in lawsuit
Feds give businesses break on hiring illegals
Obama Promises Illegals: Sign Up for Obamacare--Info Won't Be Used for Deportation
Obama Seeks Executive Options To Aid Illegal Aliens
Sessions: Obama's Pro-Illegal Alien Executive Action Hurts Struggling U.S. Workers
Obama: 'I Don't Have Time to Waste. Clock Is Ticking'
Threatens to veto bill requiring him to follow law
Another Change to the Law: Obama makes insurance company bailout bigger despite public outrage
March Constitutional Madness: Which is President Obama's worst constitutional violation?
Make your picks:
[Edited notes Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) Senate Candidate]: "Dept of Justice suing Arizona over their own laws, Waivers to exempt certain states from No Child Left Behind, Failure to enforce federal drug laws, Executive branch assertions over Fast & Furious, FCC power grab over the internet, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission trying to regulate who churches and religious institutions can hire and must keep and promote, The bailout of the auto industry (a part of the financial bailout--a car company is not part of the finance industry), Government trying to regulate children working on family farms, Congressional carve out to give subsidies for Obamacare to congressional staff and members that doesn't apply to regular folks, Violation of conscience rights: the government forces us to fund abortion, Delays of Obamcare: first, the individual mandate delay of Obamacare; empowering IPAB (the independent payment advisory board--15 unelected bureaucrats assert more power over payment [e.g. death panels]), specific carve outs for making your own health care plans compliant; second, the delay of the employer mandate, Separation of the branches: implementing the Dream Act (couldn't pass it through Congress so they tried to implement it in the Executive Branch, changing welfare work rules, the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, the Executive Branch monitoring AP and Fox News, Decision not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act which is federal law), Appointments to National Labor Relations Board (recess appointments when the Senate wasn't actually recessed), EPA decision to regulate carbon dioxide without any congressional authority, barricading of the World War II Memorial*, Preventing layoff notices to federal contractors during sequestration so they can manage politics--just giving gag orders to federal contractors, Closing of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage site in violation of the law, A six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf, War in Libya without congressional authorization, Having a White House kill list that includes Americans and their being no due process of law, The President's decision to try to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors, NSA collecting data from American's cell phones, Warrantless searches of American's international phone calls, Issuing national security letters to violate free speech (gag orders that don't allow people to communicate), Proposing a national license plate tracking system."
*Arguably there is not a constitutional hook--the regulation hook without any law
Health law penalizes 'wrong' insurance 18 times more than no insurance
White House extends deadline again; To rely on 'honor system'
Obama: If I could bypass Congress on immigration, “I would do so”
GOP Representative: Pay hike for federal workers violates constitution
White House warns of congressional bypass
Holder can't explain constitutional basis for executive orders
Oregon won't defend gay-marriage ban in lawsuit
Feds give businesses break on hiring illegals
Obama Promises Illegals: Sign Up for Obamacare--Info Won't Be Used for Deportation
Obama Seeks Executive Options To Aid Illegal Aliens
Sessions: Obama's Pro-Illegal Alien Executive Action Hurts Struggling U.S. Workers
Obama: 'I Don't Have Time to Waste. Clock Is Ticking'
Threatens to veto bill requiring him to follow law
Another Change to the Law: Obama makes insurance company bailout bigger despite public outrage
March Constitutional Madness: Which is President Obama's worst constitutional violation?
Make your picks:
[Edited notes Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) Senate Candidate]: "Dept of Justice suing Arizona over their own laws, Waivers to exempt certain states from No Child Left Behind, Failure to enforce federal drug laws, Executive branch assertions over Fast & Furious, FCC power grab over the internet, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission trying to regulate who churches and religious institutions can hire and must keep and promote, The bailout of the auto industry (a part of the financial bailout--a car company is not part of the finance industry), Government trying to regulate children working on family farms, Congressional carve out to give subsidies for Obamacare to congressional staff and members that doesn't apply to regular folks, Violation of conscience rights: the government forces us to fund abortion, Delays of Obamcare: first, the individual mandate delay of Obamacare; empowering IPAB (the independent payment advisory board--15 unelected bureaucrats assert more power over payment [e.g. death panels]), specific carve outs for making your own health care plans compliant; second, the delay of the employer mandate, Separation of the branches: implementing the Dream Act (couldn't pass it through Congress so they tried to implement it in the Executive Branch, changing welfare work rules, the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, the Executive Branch monitoring AP and Fox News, Decision not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act which is federal law), Appointments to National Labor Relations Board (recess appointments when the Senate wasn't actually recessed), EPA decision to regulate carbon dioxide without any congressional authority, barricading of the World War II Memorial*, Preventing layoff notices to federal contractors during sequestration so they can manage politics--just giving gag orders to federal contractors, Closing of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage site in violation of the law, A six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf, War in Libya without congressional authorization, Having a White House kill list that includes Americans and their being no due process of law, The President's decision to try to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors, NSA collecting data from American's cell phones, Warrantless searches of American's international phone calls, Issuing national security letters to violate free speech (gag orders that don't allow people to communicate), Proposing a national license plate tracking system."
*Arguably there is not a constitutional hook--the regulation hook without any law
Health law penalizes 'wrong' insurance 18 times more than no insurance
White House extends deadline again; To rely on 'honor system'
Last edited:
Immigration Enforcement 'Isn't Smart' 2 Thess 2:7,8
Obama Administration broke law by freeing Jihadis for Bergdahl :Nineveh: 2 Thess 2:7,8
Last edited:
dup
Last edited:
In situations where an agency refrains from bringing an enforcement action, courts have historically been cautious in reviewing the agency determination—generally holding that these nonenforcement decisions are “committed to agency discretion” and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The seminal case on this topic is Heckler v. Chaney, in which the Supreme Court held that an “agency’s decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review.”
However, the Court also clearly indicated that the presumption against judicial review of agency nonenforcement decisions may be overcome in a variety of specific situations. For example, a court may review an agency nonenforcement determination “where the substantive statute has
provided guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers,” or where the agency has “’consciously and expressly adopted a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities."
As such, it would appear that Congress may overcome the presumption of nonreviewability and restrict executive discretion through statute by expressly providing “meaningful standards” for the manner in which the agency may exercise its enforcement powers.
Nevertheless, legislation that can be characterized as significantly restricting the exercise of executive branch enforcement decisions, in either the criminal, civil, or administrative context, could raise questions under the separation of powers.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43708.pdf
Given that Obama is more vigorously enforcing immigration laws than his predecessor, and given that Bush was notoriously given to not enforce laws that displeased him:
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.
The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html
This seems like a particularly foolish argument for Obama haters to advance.
However, the Court also clearly indicated that the presumption against judicial review of agency nonenforcement decisions may be overcome in a variety of specific situations. For example, a court may review an agency nonenforcement determination “where the substantive statute has
provided guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers,” or where the agency has “’consciously and expressly adopted a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities."
As such, it would appear that Congress may overcome the presumption of nonreviewability and restrict executive discretion through statute by expressly providing “meaningful standards” for the manner in which the agency may exercise its enforcement powers.
Nevertheless, legislation that can be characterized as significantly restricting the exercise of executive branch enforcement decisions, in either the criminal, civil, or administrative context, could raise questions under the separation of powers.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43708.pdf
Given that Obama is more vigorously enforcing immigration laws than his predecessor, and given that Bush was notoriously given to not enforce laws that displeased him:
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.
The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html
This seems like a particularly foolish argument for Obama haters to advance.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
True that. libertarians definitely do not do this. Nor do constitutional conservatives. But most "Republicans" certainly do.
I'm against immigration restrictions basically entirely (and I only say "basically" in that I wouldn't let someone who was convicted of murder and for some reason was free to immigrate) but I don't know that they "hate Hispanics." I think its more that they worship "the law."
I guess the DoI lied? Wouldn't surprise me. George III wasn't actually much of a tyrant.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Also, police not responding to calls about property crimes... I bet they still have plenty to pursue the war on drugs though
dup
Last edited:
Really, after the Glorious Revolution, no British monarch could be. The Colonies castigated King George only to poke a finger in the eye of Parliament.
Treasury used unauthorized $3 billion for Obamacare :Nineveh: 2 Thess. 2:7, 8