Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

President Obama had a pen and a phone
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States on the border from keeping unauthorized, non-American migrants from streaming in. Ah, but just let a State try to this unilaterally and see what happens.

Nope, there sure isn't. If this happened, though, you'd have no right to object to the federal government stomping it out with the view of enumerated powers you've expressed here.

BTW -- you haven't answered a single question I've asked thus far in this thread. Not a single one. Is there a reason?
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 7:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post p5harri
Resident Skeptic wrote:
p5harri wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
p5harri wrote:
Immigration has been actually been trending down for the past decade.

Invasion is a scare tactic.


You have your head in the sand. But that is no surprise. Reagan warned us years ago that if the situation in central America deteriorates, we would see millions of refugees coming in on foot to our border. Sadly, they are indeed fulfilling Reagan's warning while storming our border waving the flags of the nations they are seeking "refuge" from.


No. I just know how to research facts. Something you can’t seem to handle.


I know you cannot quote the Constitution chapter and verse. Please stop pretending that you can. One does not need to have such ability in order to grasp some basic constitutional facts. So spare us your condescending attitude.


I swore an oath to defend that Constitution for 20 years, along with several trips overseas to the land of sand to support our President orders.
So you can stuff your condescending attitude.
_________________
We are beating the bushes for mice and the lions are tearing us apart.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1699
1/4/19 7:38 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States on the border from keeping unauthorized, non-American migrants from streaming in. Ah, but just let a State try to this unilaterally and see what happens.

Nope, there sure isn't. If this happened, though, you'd have no right to object to the federal government stomping it out with the view of enumerated powers you've expressed here.

BTW -- you haven't answered a single question I've asked thus far in this thread. Not a single one. Is there a reason?


You haven't even proved your case. You have made a bunch of assumptions, such as Trump using mass eminent domain to build the barrier. Let's stay focused on your OP. It's all based on assumptions.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI


Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 1/4/19 7:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 7:39 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
p5harri wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
p5harri wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
p5harri wrote:
Immigration has been actually been trending down for the past decade.

Invasion is a scare tactic.


You have your head in the sand. But that is no surprise. Reagan warned us years ago that if the situation in central America deteriorates, we would see millions of refugees coming in on foot to our border. Sadly, they are indeed fulfilling Reagan's warning while storming our border waving the flags of the nations they are seeking "refuge" from.


No. I just know how to research facts. Something you can’t seem to handle.



I know you cannot quote the Constitution chapter and verse. Please stop pretending that you can. One does not need to have such ability in order to grasp some basic constitutional facts. So spare us your condescending attitude.


I swore an oath to defend that Constitution for 20 years, along with several trips overseas to the land of sand to support our President orders.
So you can stuff your condescending attitude.




George McGovern suffered much worse in combat. Can I not therefore criticize his politics ?
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 7:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Dave Dorsey wrote:
BTW -- you haven't answered a single question I've asked thus far in this thread. Not a single one. Is there a reason?


You haven't even proved your case. You have made a bunch of assumptions, such as Trump using mass eminent domain to build the barrier. Let's stay focused on your OP. It's all based on assumptions.

ROFL ROFL

Okay... I'll add "is there a reason why you haven't answered a single question I asked?" to the list of questions you haven't answered.

Eminent domain sucks for the people affected by it, but it is what it is. My OP is not about eminent domain. My OP is about the unlawful use of executive power. Questions about constitutional and statutory authority -- questions, again, that might as well have been shouted into the wind -- are directly germane to that topic.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 7:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States on the border from keeping unauthorized, non-American migrants from streaming in. Ah, but just let a State try to this unilaterally and see what happens.

Nope, there sure isn't. If this happened, though, you'd have no right to object to the federal government stomping it out with the view of enumerated powers you've expressed here.

BTW -- you haven't answered a single question I've asked thus far in this thread. Not a single one. Is there a reason?


And by-the-way, Trump is not trying to raise an army or militia to repel an invasion. Building a barrier does not fall under Congress' enumerated powers. The military will be using money already provided by Congress.

Nice try.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 7:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
And by-the-way, Trump is not trying to raise an army or militia to repel an invasion. Building a barrier does not fall under Congress' enumerated powers. The military will be using money already provided by Congress.

Nice try.

Err, someone doesn't know how appropriation works. That's not it, though. Appropriated money is about as far from fungible as money can be. The military doesn't just get a bucket of money with a note from Congress wishing them well. Funds are appropriated down to the cent and are given very specific codes dictating how they can and cannot be used.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 7:52 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Also - just use your brain for a second. If that's all it is, then why is there a fight over the border money at all? Why is the government shut down right now? Why didn't he just use the military's money originally? If what he was talking about today is just a normal exercise of power, why didn't he accept a CR with no money for the wall, then just build it?

Seriously, just stop for a second and think it through.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 8:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Also - just use your brain for a second. If that's all it is, then why is there a fight over the border money at all? Why is the government shut down right now? Why didn't he just use the military's money originally? If what he was talking about today is just a normal exercise of power, why didn't he accept a CR with no money for the wall, then just build it?

Seriously, just stop for a second and think it through.


I'm trying to be nice here. Trump is asking that this money be appropriated for border security. The Dems are balking. Thus, it is within Trump's power to use money already appropriated for military expenditures in a state of national emergency. Why didn't he do it already? You'd just call him a dictator.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 9:33 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Sigh. Oh well. Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 9:42 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Sigh. Oh well.


You are pretending that Congress micromanages every dollar it appropriates. They don't. Certainly they can object, but those the money has been appropriated to have some lead way. BTW, how did Obama get the money to send to Iran?

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, Trump is simply seeking to enforce laws that Congress passed concerning what constitutes a legal immigrant. Preventing him from enforcing Federal law is itself a violation of the Supremacy Clause.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 9:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
I have no way of verifying what I just read in the last couple of days, that another caravan of immigrants is amassing and scheduled to head this way in a month or so.
Yes we need better border control and the best thing is a wall.

I am remembering that it was said that the 'Mexican' border security was over run as they came North. I am remembering the last three or four times I crossed the border into Mexico. My wife and I were met with by at least a dozen heavily Armed soldiers.
When we left we walked thru customs, one man unarmed checking passports and asking what we had to declare. If these people were not afraid to push past armed soldiers, what is to prevent from pushing past our weak areas. And God forbid if someone is killed when ordered to stop and they do not. WE in the USA shoot and kill citizens who donot stop when ordered to.
YES we need a wall and Although I do not agree with Trump on all accounts, we do need a barrier, and it is becoming a national emergency, IMHO

But that is me. WE need work permits, we need some way of enforcing illegals caught, we need a bunch of stuff we do not have and a barrier would HELP!

But to the OP, I do not remember much screaming when President Obama used his pen. Now it is the end of the country if TRUMP DOES. No one seemed to enjoy reversing what the pen did. Trump was terrible for thinking of it. Even the Judges seemed to think so. Shocked
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 22369
1/4/19 9:56 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Cojak wrote:
I have no way of verifying what I just read in the last couple of days, that another caravan of immigrants is amassing and scheduled to head this way in a month or so.
Yes we need better border control and the best thing is a wall.

I am remembering that it was said that the 'Mexican' border security was over run as they came North. I am remembering the last three or four times I crossed the border into Mexico. My wife and I were met with by at least a dozen heavily Armed soldiers.
When we left we walked thru customs, one man unarmed checking passports and asking what we had to declare. If these people were not afraid to push past armed soldiers, what is to prevent from pushing past our weak areas. And God forbid if someone is killed when ordered to stop and they do not. WE in the USA shoot and kill citizens who donot stop when ordered to.
YES we need a wall and Although I do not agree with Trump on all accounts, we do need a barrier, and it is becoming a national emergency, IMHO

But that is me. WE need work permits, we need some way of enforcing illegals caught, we need a bunch of stuff we do not have and a barrier would HELP!

But to the OP, I do not remember much screaming when President Obama used his pen. Now it is the end of the country if TRUMP DOES. No one seemed to enjoy reversing what the pen did. Trump was terrible for thinking of it. Even the Judges seemed to think so. Shocked


The GOP pretty much let Obama do as he pleased for fear of being labeled racist.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 10:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
You are pretending that Congress micromanages every dollar it appropriates. They don't.

Actually, they pretty much do. Again, money is given with specific codes and is appropriated for specific purposes. Of course individual organizations can manage those funds within those codes and their mission, but they cannot take funds for purpose X and use them for purpose Y.

Resident Skeptic wrote:
BTW, how did Obama get the money to send to Iran?

I'm gonna assume you don't know the answer to your own question because you probably wouldn't have asked it if you did. What Iran received was actually their money. The $1.7b was drawn from the Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund, where it had been frozen since the revolution (to be clear, $400m was from the fund and the remaining $1.3b was interest paid from the Judgment Fund). The main issue with the legality of the payment -- ignoring for a moment what a horrible idea it was, period -- was that it seemed to be barred by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which prohibited the return of those funds to Iran until settlements related to claims against Iran had been settled. The Obama administration keyed in on a phrase in that legislation that said the payments were prohibited until the US was satisfied by those claims, and basically said "yeah we're good" which unfortunately they did have the statutory authority to do under the VTVPA. As

So even this atrocious ransom payment had the statutory authority you're denying Trump needs for the wall.

Care to give it another shot?
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 10:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
You are pretending that Congress micromanages every dollar it appropriates. They don't.

Actually, they pretty much do. Again, money is given with specific codes and is appropriated for specific purposes. Of course individual organizations can manage those funds within those codes and their mission, but they cannot take funds for purpose X and use them for purpose Y.

Resident Skeptic wrote:
BTW, how did Obama get the money to send to Iran?

I'm gonna assume you don't know the answer to your own question because you probably wouldn't have asked it if you did. What Iran received was actually their money. The $1.7b was drawn from the Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund, where it had been frozen since the revolution (to be clear, $400m was from the fund and the remaining $1.3b was interest paid from the Judgment Fund). The main issue with the legality of the payment -- ignoring for a moment what a horrible idea it was, period -- was that it seemed to be barred by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which prohibited the return of those funds to Iran until settlements related to claims against Iran had been settled. The Obama administration keyed in on a phrase in that legislation that said the payments were prohibited until the US was satisfied by those claims, and basically said "yeah we're good" which unfortunately they did have the statutory authority to do under the VTVPA. As

So even this atrocious ransom payment had the statutory authority you're denying Trump needs for the wall.

Care to give it another shot?


Another shot? I've hit a bullseye every time. Winning so easily get boring after awhile.

Quote:
Of course individual organizations can manage those funds within those codes and their mission, but they cannot take funds for purpose X and use them for purpose Y.


Exactly. They get away with it by declaring it under the umbrella of X. The wall is no exception.

But again, we digress from the original premise of your thread, which was based on flawed reasoning. Perhaps you'd like to give it another shot.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 11:13 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
[Another shot? I've hit a bullseye every time. Winning so easily get boring after awhile.

Yes, you hit me square between the eyes with that question about a move by the Obama administration that had full and direct statutory authority at every step. I don't know how I'm ever going to recover from that one. Or how I'm going to recover from the rest of the points I raised in this thread that you just ignored. Or how I'm going to endure being bested by you simply repeating points, such as those regarding appropriation, that just literally and objectively are not true. It's all become too much for me.

You've won so easily that I simply cannot fight you anymore. This will be my last post or reply to you on any topic related to politics or Trump. I'll gladly engage with you on other topics. I just can't handle putting everything I've got into crafting arguments and then being so easily defeated, or taking the time to write posts that you don't even understand, much less respond to. But mostly I can't handle getting beat anymore. You got me. I retire.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 11:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Cojak wrote:
But to the OP, I do not remember much screaming when President Obama used his pen. Now it is the end of the country if TRUMP DOES. No one seemed to enjoy reversing what the pen did. Trump was terrible for thinking of it. Even the Judges seemed to think so. Shocked

Republicans screamed about it a lot, and rightfully so. The left didn't, and are losing their minds now, while the Republicans who rightfully objected to Obama's pen and phone are -- well, need I go on lol.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 11:27 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
[Another shot? I've hit a bullseye every time. Winning so easily get boring after awhile.

Yes, you hit me square between the eyes with that question about a move by the Obama administration that had full and direct statutory authority at every step. I don't know how I'm ever going to recover from that one. Or how I'm going to recover from the rest of the points I raised in this thread that you just ignored. Or how I'm going to endure being bested by you simply repeating points, such as those regarding appropriation, that just literally and objectively are not true. It's all become too much for me.

You've won so easily that I simply cannot fight you anymore. This will be my last post or reply to you on any topic related to politics or Trump. I'll gladly engage with you on other topics. I just can't handle putting everything I've got into crafting arguments and then being so easily defeated, or taking the time to write posts that you don't even understand, much less respond to. But mostly I can't handle getting beat anymore. You got me. I retire.


Dave, you have become a legend in your own mind. You are the very arrogant person you claim Trump to be. You have set yourself up far above many far more qualified people than you and I that do not agree with you. You and a couple of others on here remind me of Pentecostal ultra-purists who go start a little church somewhere declaring they are the true remnant. Trump's victory and continued success has discredited you already.

As for statutory authority, you have proved my point.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 11:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
As for statutory authority, you have proved my point.

Lol. You literally don't have even the faintest clue what you're talking about.

It's been fun, RS. See ya in threads on other topics.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/4/19 11:38 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
As for statutory authority, you have proved my point.

Lol. You literally don't have even the faintest clue what you're talking about.

It's been fun, RS. See ya in threads on other topics.


Is a President bound and authorized to enforce the laws made by Congress? Yes or no.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/4/19 11:40 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.