DACA expires today - Good job Tards

[TreeFrogTrader]

Your concurrent jurisdiction argument is completely fabricated. The president executed the laws, hence the executive branch. The president has deference in the execution for a number of reasons.

Now, there are legitimate issues within DACA you have not addressed but don’t expect me to do your homework for you.

We can churn this some more if you like playing dumb and having other people watch it.

The president does have deference in executing the law but not to the point of not executing the law as required by the constitution or by changing the law or the intent of the law by decree.

DACA is an example of both.


Keep trying.

 

[jem]

Usual name said...

"There’s a machine called google where you can type questions into and get answers. I am not google."

Which is pretty funny since I did google it before asking the questions.
First google asks if you meant differential...
Then the next returns on page 1 all speak about interpersonal relationships.

which is why I asked how you were using the word.

so the irony is that you responded like a jerk instead of doing a google search yourself.

 

[UsualName]

We can churn this some more if you like playing dumb and having other people watch it.

The president does have deference in executing the law but not to the point of not executing the law as required by the constitution or by changing the law or the intent of the law by decree.

DACA is an example of both.


Keep trying.

I don’t know about DACA being an example of one or even both but when it comes into deference, intention and outcome is what is important. So, now you’re moving in the right direction at least.

 

[UsualName]

Usual name said...

"There’s a machine called google where you can type questions into and get answers. I am not google."

Which is pretty funny since I did google it before asking the questions.
First google asks if you meant differential...
Then the next returns on page 1 all speak about interpersonal relationships.

which is why I asked how you were using the word.

so the irony is that you responded like a jerk instead of doing a google search yourself.

Try googling harder.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I don’t know about DACA being an example of one or even both but when it comes into deference, intention and outcome is what is important. So, now you’re moving in the right direction at least.

No. The constitution is the controlling factor. Obama did not gain legislative powers or the power to not "take care that the laws of the country are faithfully executed" based on his intentions and outcome and deference theories. Not the way the American legal system works. You have joined your tard comrades here by relying on Canadian law to defend your position.

And just to keep repeating it, because that is your game when you have nothing new, even Obama said as much. Refer to the video I posted or has that gone away because you have played parrot over the last ten posts.


Try again. Your argument above is stupid.

 

[UsualName]

No. The constitution is the controlling factor. Obama did not gain legislative powers or the power to not "take care that the laws of the country are faithfully executed" based on his intentions and outcome and deference theories. Not the way the American legal system works. You have joined your tard comrades here by relying on Canadian law to defend your position.

And just to keep repeating it, because that is your game when you have nothing new, even Obama said as much. Refer to the video I posted or has that gone away because you have played parrot over the last ten posts.


Try again. Your argument above is stupid.

You’re getting there. Minus the insult, the question is did Obama faithfully execute the law. I say yes. His stated intent was to focus on deporting criminal aliens and during his tenure the US deported record numbers of aliens and expedited their intended target while creating a more efficient system. So, yes, he obviously faithfully executed the law based on intent and outcome.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You’re getting there. Minus the insult, the question is did Obama faithfully execute the law. I say yes. His stated intent was to focus on deporting criminal aliens and during his tenure the US deported record numbers of aliens and expedited their intended target while creating a more efficient system. So, yes, he obviously faithfully executed the law based on intent and outcome.

Absurd.

He faithfully executed the laws by declaring that an entire class of illegals would be exempt from deportation- with no such exemption in the legislation?

You are a big advocate of a president being able to make up a law and pull it out of his arse when it comes to Obama. There are many more years to come with Trump in office. Let's see if you are as a big a supporter of rogue action by presidents as we go forward under trump. So far your ilk runs to the court every time it has a hissy fit.

Like the rest of your ilk, you have lots and lots of energy for obtuse discussions about Obama and defending him but you are missing in action and clueless when there are bills on the floor of the house to actually do something legit. I said your ilk would screw it up and you did.

DACA will be before the court within a few months. Let's see how the courts ruling on that helps your negotiating position. The irony is that Obama has already been clear on how he thinks the constitutional law shakes out on that but he left his bootlickers lost in space thinking his little strategy to hold him over until he could get out of office was workable long term. It isn't.

 

[UsualName]

Absurd.

He faithfully executed the laws by declaring that an entire class of illegals would be exempt from deportation- with no such exemption in the legislation?

You are a big advocate of a president being able to make up a law and pull it out of his arse when it comes to Obama. There are many more years to come with Trump in office. Let's see if you are as a big a supporter of rogue action by presidents as we go forward under trump. So far your ilk runs to the court every time it has a hissy fit.

Like the rest of your ilk, you have lots and lots of energy for obtuse discussions about Obama and defending him but you are missing in action and clueless when there are bills on the floor of the house to actually do something legit. I said your ilk would screw it up and you did.

DACA will be before the court within a few months. Let's see how the courts ruling on that helps your negotiating position. The irony is that Obama has already been clear on how he thinks the constitutional law shakes out on that but he left his bootlickers lost in space thinking his little strategy to hold him over until he could get out of office was workable long term. It isn't.

What you’re saying isn’t true. Trump is doing exactly the same thing with the Russian sanctions. The only difference is Trump’s intent and outcome does not jive with rationale.

As far as being before the court, before the court on what basis?

 

[Tony Stark]

meanwhile, the games begin - but hey- y'all are focused on Hope Hicks or was that last week and you have moved on to whether Melania is holding Trump's hand this week.

Idiots.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...fessional-licenses-daca-recipients/373717002/

When the idiot doesn't know that he's the idiot