Obama vs Romney

ThinkToday

Problem is, Obama's oath of office to faithfully uphold the constitution and laws of the US goes out the window when he chooses to ignore immigration LAW. When law enforcement turns to selective prosecution, we have a problem. When the selective prosecution guideline comes from the executive branch just prior to an election, we have a bigger problem. We now have a President which has inserted his election strategy ahead of the LAW of the land for personal gain. And, he didn't do this in his first three years because???? Oh yea, doesn't have the election/voter value it has this close to the vote. We are a Republic, which means we are a nation on laws. Perhaps the President's education was more symbolic than substance.

On the compassion side, I don't disagree with the substance, e.g. not punishing kids for the sins of the parents. On the other hand, we have laws, and they must rule until changed.

BobG

The motivation for what he's doing (or not doing) is pretty clear. In fact, the only unusual thing he's doing is making sure he publicizes it.

Government officials always have to make decisions about which laws to enforce and how vigorously to enforce them. It's unrealistic to think every law is going to be prosecuted to its fullest extent.

For example, from the Texas constitution:

No one in Texas is ever going to enforce this provision because it clearly violates the 1st and 14th Amendments.

And the US will never completely shut down drug traffic from Mexico/Central America in spite of us technically having the capability - at least if we used our military to its fullest extent. The reason being that the military has other things we'd rather have them do than shut down drug trafficking. In fact, for over a decade, we've had a lot of things we'd rather have them do.

And I imagine there are very few cities, if any, that have launched an effort to stop every speeder on the roads (or every drunk driver, for that matter). We pull over just enough token speeders to make other speeders worry a little bit (well, a tiny bit, anyway).

Realistically, how many resources to you want to devote to finding and deporting people that are here illegally, but have no other home of memory other than here (and how large of a tax increase would you support in order to obtain those resources)? It would be easier to track down and deport illegals that have come to the US and overstayed their visas and we don't pursue them very vigorously, either. If they come to the attention of authorities because they committed a crime, deportation is just one extra penalty they could pay, but we just don't go looking very hard for them.

This is an issue that's more rhetoric than anything else. And making sure the public knows this is one law that won't be enforced is just another form of that rhetoric.

aquitaine

The problem is not really Obama, he is merely the latest part of a trend going back a couple of decades. The decline of Congress as an institution is very much related to the mess we find ourselves in.

mege

I'd rather have a congress and president that only did things when neccessary - too often politicians pass policy/commands just for votes (ie: the President's immigration statement) without any long term consideration.

We shouldn't need government to save us.

That is ultimately my biggest beef with the President's immigration statement: now, any real/major reform for immigration that doesn't include amnesty will be 'taking away' the quasi-pardon that he's given many illegal immigrants. His order is very short sighted in this manner - it doesn't actually stop the problem, but just makes a few people feel better at the expense of complicating later policy decisions. Should anchor babies be punished? No, but we need a comprehensive approach or all it will do is encourage more of the same down the road. So, his statement just serves to undermine a comprehensive effort for election-year political gain.

Again, back to my initial statement - this is just meddlesome more than any actual long term consideration. I'm 100% ok with our stalemate congress (except for the lack of passing a budget thanks to Sen. Reid!), it gives them less opportunities to screw things up. I just wish that our President would realize that too.

ThinkToday

That's a red herring. No State law or State constitutions can usurp the US Constitution in areas where there is overlap. You are comparing a clearly enforceable immigration law to and unenforceable legacy article in a 100 plus year old document.

While many Presidents have picked which laws they will be most vigorous in enforcing, it isn't common to say "we'll give a pass to all X breaches of the law past, present, and future." Remember this amnesty covers people that are now in their 30s. These aren't just "kids". I don’t recall the section of the oath of office that says I’ll faithfully uphold those laws I agree with, or the part of the Constitution that allows the President the authority to determine which Acts of Congress he/she must defend and enforce. On top of that, there is no urgency in making this decision, it’s not like we had overflowing cell blocks of “kids” to deport. IMO, it’s clear urgency is in securing votes from the Hispanic community.

ThinkToday

Unpopular is an interesting concept, but pretty vague. People often like their congressperson, it's the "others" that are bad. People are elected in a Representative government to represent the people of their district, be the people's voice, and vote the will of the people. IMO, the bailout and ObamaCare prove Representatives vote the will of their Party and Party leadership on both sides, with at least as much weight as “we the people”. Obama is a big part of the problem. He pushed ObamaCare through at full ramming speed without the support of a clear majority of the people. In something that has such a huge impact on our lives, health, scope of government control, and 1/6th of the economy, he should have had a supermajority. IMO, you don't ram through congress and down the throats of 100% of the population with a bare majority of congress and less than a majority of the governed population. Remember, as Lincoln said "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Astronuc

Poll: Obama loses advantage as economic anxieties increase
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-obama-los...063013702.html
More Americans seem less optimistic. The next jobs report is due July 9 - in two weeks. Romney could begin to pull ahead.

Apparently Romney had his best fundraising day yet, and Obama's campaign went into the red during May! I don't know if that means his campaign treasury went into the red, or if he simply didn't raise as much money as spend for the month.

Astronuc

Perhaps the Obama administration lobbied Congress, but I seem to remember the Ted Kennedy was a principal sponsor (and co-author?) of the health care bill in question. I believe the House and Senate, as representatives of the people, voted for the bill, and then sent it to Obama for signature.

mege

I'm definately not a fan of the ACA in the least (or how it was fast-tracked through congress), but I think that 'without the support of a majority of the people' is not the right way to look at it. While yes, we expect our representation in government to do things we desire - sometimes I hope they just do what is right. Are raising taxes and cutting programs ever popular? No, but they're neccessary to keep the country running. Currently, that is something that I think many politicians don't get - they just want to do what's popular rather than what is honestly right. There's almost too much at stake, politically, to do something that is unpopular (hence - the problem of democracy). We have an ever bloating library of laws and regulations because it would be politically impossible to get rid of some of them...

russ_watters

That's only because Obama didn't write the bill and hand it to Kennedy like he should have for a bill that was a centerpiece of his campaign. It is largely his failure of leadership that caused it to languish for months in a friendly Congress. Instead of saying "here it is, vote on it", he said "write and pass me a healthcare law", then left the many details to them to figure out.

ThinkToday

Writing bills isn't his role. He can help shape them by using his Office to put forth ideas, but Congress does whatever it wants. Even when Carter was President and the republicans were little more than a footnote in the Senate and House, Congress didn't do all he wanted.

Jimmy Snyder

The Clinton administration wrote their own healthcare bill. One of the criticisms of that bill was that it had more penalty clauses in it than a crime bill that was submitted at about the same time. I think Russ' point is that Obama claims credit for a bill he had no hand in writing. I have a great knock-knock joke. You start it.

AnTiFreeze3

Knock knock.

Jimmy Snyder

Who's there?

AnTiFreeze3

Healthcare bill.

Jimmy Snyder

See? I told you I had a great one.

Astronuc

Seems apropos:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe