Results 1 to 2 of 2
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Trey Gowdy & Liberal Prof Eviscerated Obama’s Claim That He Can Grant Amnesty

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Trey Gowdy & Liberal Prof Eviscerated Obama’s Claim That He Can Grant Amnesty

    Scathing...




    Trey Gowdy & Liberal Prof Eviscerated Obama’s Claim That He Can Grant Amnesty Before It Was Cool
    Before left-leaning websites started post-hoc justifications of President Obama's abuse of executive authority to unilaterally grant exemptions from the law to five million illegal immigrants, and after the President himself had said on at least 22 occasions that he did not have the power to do so, there was a directly relevant exchange between South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy and two legal experts: Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Jonathan Turley, a liberal Law School Professor at George Washington University.
    ijreview.com|By Kyle Becker

    Trey Gowdy & Liberal Prof Eviscerated Obama’s Claim That He Can Grant Amnesty Before It Was Cool

    By Kyle Becker (9 hours ago) | Headlines



    Before left-leaning websites started post-hoc justifications of President Obama’s abuse of executive authority to unilaterally grant exemptions from the law to five million illegal immigrants, and after the President himself had said on at least 22 occasions that he did not have the power to do so, there was a directly relevant exchange between South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy and two legal experts: Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Jonathan Turley, a liberal Law School Professor at George Washington University.
    The December 3rd, 2013, exchange made waves on social media, but deserves reinvigoration due to the incisive manner it cuts down numerous arguments being circulated in the media and in the government that the President has somehow miraculously stumbled upon some arcane formula for effectively legalizing 5 million non-citizens; by extension, assuredly placing additional burdens on the several states to pick up the tab for it.
    If we only stare at the philosopher’s stone long enough, so these ostensibly sophisticated and faux-insider articles proffer, we’ll eventually see the light: The President can make law, he can legalize whomever he damn well pleases, and we’d all be better off if we’d just leave the matter to our superiors.
    Unfortunately for the “intellectual class,” there are simple arguments that cut their contrived erudition to shreds. Trey Gowdy’s is illustrative.
    “If the President can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the President likewise fail to enforce election laws?” Gowdy posed in matter-of-fact fashion to Simon Lazarus.
    After Lazarus replied “no,” Gowdy instantly rejoined, “Why not? If he can suspend mandatory minimum and immigration laws, why not election laws?”
    Indeed. It is as if the entire U.S. government were founded on the notion of divided powers, representation in Congress, and a legislative branch that writes the laws and an executive branch that follows them. Now, we are all supposed to believe “hope and change” is an executive who dictates the law, regardless of the financial burden to taxpayers and the consequences to the nation? Hardly.
    Congressman Gowdy eventually turns to Jonathan Turley for answers that Lazarus claims are out of his area of expertise.
    “If the President can suspend immigration laws, marijuana laws, why not election laws?”
    “Well, I think that some of these areas I can’t imagine can be justified through prosecutorial discretion,” Professor Turley replied, “It’s not prosecutorial discretion to go into a law and say an entire category of people will no longer be subject to the law.”
    In dry legalese, that’s about as tantamount to a ‘mic drop’ as it gets – because that’s exactly what the President’s executive decree effectively does. The professor eventually concludes, sagaciously, this is “the most serious constitutional crisis in my lifetime.”
    Yet for much of the media, its inquiry into hum-drum, politics-as-usual trivia to interrogate closely into whether a president actually has the authority to make such sweeping decrees, effectively nullifying duly passed law that has come to fruition because of numerous representative elections. This is a blatant defiance of the will of the American people.
    The New York Times, in a piece published Saturday, shows the petty political calculations that went into the timing of such a decree:
    On June 30, the president called Mr. Boehner to tell him he was about to declare the legislative effort dead. In the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama then announced he would “fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress,” and would act by the end of the summer.
    He instructed Mr. Johnson to undertake a much broader examination of his executive authority. The secretary and his team concluded Mr. Obama could not grant protections to seven million or more immigrants who might have qualified under the comprehensive bill passed by the Senate in 2013, as advocates had demanded. After consulting with Mr. Obama, they identified initiatives that could include five million. The secretary took a hands-on approach, officials said. Sitting at his office computer, Mr. Johnson wrote final versions of most of the directives issued on Nov. 20 setting up the controversial programs.
    But there was another delay: Democratic senators who were up for re-election in 2014 told the White House that an announcement by the president could be so politically damaging in their states that it would destroy their chances to hold control of the Senate. On Nov. 4, most of those Democrats lost anyway.
    Could not the entire substance of the legal maneuver be a petty political calculation? If the President had withheld his executive action until after the election because he knew it would be decisive in key Senate battles, why not withhold it for the Congress to formulate a comprehensive immigration bill? Why couldn’t the President and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate address the “crisis” his first two years in office?
    By failing to address whether or not the President’s move actually was legal, the thrust of the Times article is that the White House’s team had met with the Department of Homeland Security, acting somehow by extreme stretch of the imagination as a check on an ambitious president, and had concluded that some way 5 million illegal immigrants could effectively be legalized by the stroke of a pen. But 7 million – why, that’s just going too far.
    What is going too far is a media and political class who believe that the concept of separation of powers is too nuanced for the simple folk to grasp, and so it’s open season as far as the last official bastion of Democratic power standing in Washington, D.C., is concerned.
    As the last two mid-term elections showed, what has come to be “open season” are politicians who repeatedly defy the will of the people and rule by fiat instead of by permission. There will be another election. And the memory of the American people – not as short as Mr. Obama would feign.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/2092...-amnesty-cool/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,185
    Why would anyone again vote for "hope and change, or "hope," or "change," or "it is time for change?" To interest me remotely in those promises I would need a definition of their meaning with a full explanation of HOW they intend to bring it about!!! It is time to stop voting for politicians who use those words without full disclosure!!

Similar Threads

  1. Law Prof Gets Cute with Trey Gowdy On IRS Scandal & Gets Perp-Walked to the Democrat
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-2014, 08:03 PM
  2. DML on Trey Gowdy's Support for Amnesty
    By Mayday in forum Videos about Illegal Immigration, refugee programs, globalism, & socialism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2014, 01:33 PM
  3. Gowdy Shoots Down Obama's Claim Amnesty Is Next on Legislative Agenda
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-19-2013, 06:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •