Indiana Senators Oppose Obama’s Immigration Action

I don’t care a lot for Donnelly, but think! We could have had Mourdock.

I regret to say, this is what you can expect in Indiana, which has the politics of the Deep South. And by that I mean that they don’t like people who “don’t look like us.” Personally, by experience with the Latinos is that the compare quite favorably with many of the people who want them deported. And, the further south in the state you go, the worse it becomes.

You can expect this from Coats, as he is simply mirroring the intolerance of the “social conservatives,” which in itself is a euphemism. As for the perfidious Donnelly, it is probably the same, excepting that he pretends to be from the more enlightened ranks, but opportunism drives him to act Republican. Shame on them both.

No the reason he is opposed to it and other Senators is it is against the Constitution for the President to do this. He thinks he is a king that can dictate to this country and people are sick of it. He ignores the Constitution and goes against what he said was not his power to do this. He is just pandering to people that have broken our laws. It has nothing to do with skin color or race but about following our laws. If we followed Mexico’s laws then the illegals would be deported or locked up yet Mexico likes the illegals because they send our tax dollars back to Mexico.

Indiana doesn’t have politics of the deep South but believe in laws that should be followed. Democrats in DC think the Constitution doesn’t matter and they can do whatever they think, of course so do many Republicans. We need term limits for the House and Senate so that they are more in tune with citizens instead of becoming Washingtonians and forgetting about their constituents just as you want to ignore what citizens believe in.

Even President Obama himself said he didn’t have the authority over 22 times [youtube them yourself]. The Constitution establishes a separation of powers between Executive – they enforce the laws [which is one reason the AG is part of the President's cabinet], Congress passes the laws, and the courts rule on the Constitutionality of the laws. Presidents don’t have the authority under the Constitution to pick and choose which laws to enforce = something Obama doesn’t understand. Either read the Constitution or listen to Obama before this election to find out why it is unconstitutional for him to take this action.

Your reading comprehension isn’t very good and I told you how the Constitution reads about the powers each branch has and the executive branch includes the President. Any further help you will have to do for yourself because the Constitution is quite clear.

Mine does not come from any commentator and my guess is you are a Constitutional student just as Obama was a “Constitutional Prof’. Obama said himself he couldn’t take these steps and the Constitution is clear [I have studied and taught the Constitution] that the Executive can’t establish law or ignore parts of laws as Obama has done. Nothing peculiar about reading the Constitution as written. I have a disability that limits my time on the computer so I won’t spend it looking up research you should do yourself.

I have read the research and studied it in college along with seeing documentation every year I taught. You clearly are a lawyer?? maybe that believes the Constitution doesn’t need to be followed and can be interpreted any way to suit you beliefs. Ever since progressives started expanding our gov’t [back in the late 1800s and early 1900] they have overstepped the boundaries of the Constitution and judges have ruled in ways the way they interpret the Constitution making laws they don’t have the Constitutional power to do. I didn’t teach misinformation as I taught all sides of the argument to my students having them research the issues to make valid arguments to support their position. Having a different position than you does not make me wrong or less informed than you. As I said, clearly you don’t care, my time on the internet now is very limited due to my disability; so no I will not look up Court Law that I think gave government power that clearly was intended to be limited.

Yes Marbury v. Madison established the role courts play in our legislative process. As I stated before courts have ruled incorrectly in my mind IE Plessy v. Ferguson which is an example of court activism that I taught to my students and the need to overturn the decision with legislation or a latter court ruling. I see a danger in courts setting legislation because they are unelected officials often with lifetime positions that don’t rule [ and I don't think they should]based on public opinion. However, once courts started taking active actions to establish law it has distorted our system of gov’t and that is what you don’t seem to understand. Now if a President takes action or a court takes action against your political persuasion you will see why our country was founded on the idea that Congress establishes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and Courts rule on the Constitutionality of laws. In this way citizens have input into our gov’t through their representatives while the President can veto the bill requiring Congress to have super majority to pass the bill. We still have the courts to make sure the law doesn’t violate the Constitution which protects our rights. In this way we have a gov’t of the people while protecting the rights of the minorities.

I wasn’t saying that laws established outside of Congress have no standing but that the President’s executive order goes outside the boundaries he has as a President. Executive orders have been abused by many Presidents as they essentially are writing law instead of establishing rules for the executive branch of gov’t. I read Obama’s executive order on illegal immigration as stepping outside his power as his order establishes law under the guise of orders for the judicial arm of the Executive branch.

It is clear your job deals with legal issues of gov’t but we will disagree on the role of gov’t and the authority of each Branch of gov’t. Yes there will have to be some legal challenge to overcome President Obama’s EO.

You are a sad commentary on our lawyers of Constitution that can’t comprehend what is said from post to post. Making those kind of statements kind of stops all conversation doesn’t it. You, like many lawyers, nitpick at what is written instead of understanding points that someone is trying to make.

If you think it was sad, I am now disabled from spinal disease and severe pain trying to focus enough to post, that I taught my students to collect evidence and think for themselves, then you are right. On the other hand I find it sad that when others don’t agree with you they are less than you. By the way my bringing up Plessy was just to take one of the most terrible decision the Court could take if you believe the courts can make changes to the laws which they didn’t do with that decision. I wasn’t trying to say it didn’t agree with the laws at the time.

It is clear we think differently and I have to admit I get aggravated now and then so time to end this.

Accepted; I have enjoyed the citations and concepts from a different perspective as I prefer to converse with people that cause me to think.