Link to hearing (click here).
It is all political rhetoric and driven by Ms. Elizabeth Price Foley who is affiliated with "The Tea Party" through the book she wrote (click here) and she appears as an author on the Wall Street opinion pages.
After all her notoriety to the public she came before the committee as a professional capable of opinion without conflict of interest. I don't that ever came through in her testimony. I was not impressed with her testimony nor that of Attorney General Laxalt of Arizona. I wasn't impressed for basically the same reason.
Rep. Jackson Lee was impressive and very well prepared to discuss the question.
The folks with the political pinion about the executive order regarding immigration had no definitive measures to discuss. They hold the President hostage to his own words stated 22 times that carries the words, "...I don't have the power to..." That is NOT a legal opinion or carries legal brevity. It is hearsay. So, the committee has no legal basis to proceed in any way. The AG of Nevada's only focus was the President's words. That is why they filed the lawsuit. On one hand the plaintiffs state the President has no right to be dictator while they insist his 22 time stated words are law and the basis to the lawsuit. Go figure.
The entire issue regarding the accusation against the President in regard to his Executive Order is nonsense. It is all politics.
Ms. What's her name,..., Price states the President is "boot strapping" his order. In other words he is committing conspiracy against the constitution. According to her this boot strapping has occurred with every action the President takes in order to (my words, not hers) over throw the Constitution.
The other reason Ms. Price states the President is unlawful in his Executive Authority is the fact he stated (again 22 times) he has changed the law. As was pointed out by others it was nothing but a slip of language. The President has the right to effect POLICY and not LAW.
So, the people that would benefit from the Executive Order regarding 5 million Undocumented are being postponed because of these words stated 22 different times and an activist judge AND references to "The Federalist Papers" and it's warning about dictatorships.
I can't believe this country is carrying on by Federalist Papers that have become antiquated in their paranoia and political rhetoric in a stump speech by President Obama in his visits across the USA to bring about an understanding of his promise to these people.
The lawsuit should have been thrown out a long time ago. I think it was Rep. Jackson Lee that stated, the DHS funding should never have been held separate from the rest of the budget because the funding was approved for 2 years long before the Republicans decided to make an political exception of it.
This hearing is 3 hours, ten minutes and 34 seconds long spending the American people's treasury on political nonsense.
Bootstrapping rule was used in a criminal prosecution for conspiracy, while deciding whether to allow the jury to consider a statement of conspiracy. Moreover, the allegation must be supported by an independent evidence. If an independent evidence can convince the court that a conspiracy existed, only then such a statement can be introduced into trial and heard by the jury.
Bootstrapping in the case of President Obama's executive authority means measures he is taking are adding up to destroying the US Constitution.
Those are the three premise of the lawsuit that is prohibiting 5 million Undocumented from carrying on with their lives without worrying about deportation. The words stating, "...I changed the law" by President Obama 22 times, the alleged bootstrapping and some nonsense in the Federalist papers.
That's all of it. There is no basis for the lawsuit, Congress has not acted to legislate Immigration Reform and the President's Executive Order is being postponed because of an activist judge and President Obama's respect for the process of our legal system.
The Federalist Papers (click here) can be called "The paranoia of the colonists" and they are not the US Constitution.
Conclusion section of the Federalist Papers:
To the People of the State of New York:
ACCORDING to the formal division of the subject of these papers, announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points: "the analogy of the proposed government to your own State constitution," and "the additional security which its adoption will afford to republican government, to liberty, and to property." But these heads have been so fully anticipated and exhausted in the progress of the work, that it would now scarcely be possible to do any thing more than repeat, in a more dilated form, what has been heretofore said, which the advanced stage of the question, and the time already spent upon it, conspire to forbid....
They are a framework of which laws or better said a state's constitution can be written. It was an intellectual exercise to provide a document that would allow consistency in understanding freedom. The USA is an experiment. It started over 200 years ago and the Founding Fathers while hopeful never expected it to hold up centuries. The Federalist Papers are interesting. They show the thinking of some of the most important people in the construction of our democracy, but, they are not law and have no place in any legal proceedings.
It is completely obvious the Republicans are engaged in racism and have no real reasons to OBSTRUCT immigration reform.
Ask Ted Cruz what his plans are for immigration reform and where he can point to it in The Federalist Papers. And make sure he includes his birth certificate. I think there might be a reference to that in the Federalist Papers somewhere.
The Constitution’s Natural Born Citizenship Clause states that “no person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The Founding Fathers, there were no women, didn't know who should be President because they were a citizen of a colony of England. The land they were standing on had a sovereignty and a name. So, when they wrote the Constitution they basically IMMIGRATED from a British colony to the USA of 13 states. The constitutionally sound policy of a natural citizen had to start somewhere.
After all her notoriety to the public she came before the committee as a professional capable of opinion without conflict of interest. I don't that ever came through in her testimony. I was not impressed with her testimony nor that of Attorney General Laxalt of Arizona. I wasn't impressed for basically the same reason.
Rep. Jackson Lee was impressive and very well prepared to discuss the question.
The folks with the political pinion about the executive order regarding immigration had no definitive measures to discuss. They hold the President hostage to his own words stated 22 times that carries the words, "...I don't have the power to..." That is NOT a legal opinion or carries legal brevity. It is hearsay. So, the committee has no legal basis to proceed in any way. The AG of Nevada's only focus was the President's words. That is why they filed the lawsuit. On one hand the plaintiffs state the President has no right to be dictator while they insist his 22 time stated words are law and the basis to the lawsuit. Go figure.
The entire issue regarding the accusation against the President in regard to his Executive Order is nonsense. It is all politics.
Ms. What's her name,..., Price states the President is "boot strapping" his order. In other words he is committing conspiracy against the constitution. According to her this boot strapping has occurred with every action the President takes in order to (my words, not hers) over throw the Constitution.
The other reason Ms. Price states the President is unlawful in his Executive Authority is the fact he stated (again 22 times) he has changed the law. As was pointed out by others it was nothing but a slip of language. The President has the right to effect POLICY and not LAW.
So, the people that would benefit from the Executive Order regarding 5 million Undocumented are being postponed because of these words stated 22 different times and an activist judge AND references to "The Federalist Papers" and it's warning about dictatorships.
I can't believe this country is carrying on by Federalist Papers that have become antiquated in their paranoia and political rhetoric in a stump speech by President Obama in his visits across the USA to bring about an understanding of his promise to these people.
The lawsuit should have been thrown out a long time ago. I think it was Rep. Jackson Lee that stated, the DHS funding should never have been held separate from the rest of the budget because the funding was approved for 2 years long before the Republicans decided to make an political exception of it.
This hearing is 3 hours, ten minutes and 34 seconds long spending the American people's treasury on political nonsense.
Bootstrapping rule was used in a criminal prosecution for conspiracy, while deciding whether to allow the jury to consider a statement of conspiracy. Moreover, the allegation must be supported by an independent evidence. If an independent evidence can convince the court that a conspiracy existed, only then such a statement can be introduced into trial and heard by the jury.
Bootstrapping in the case of President Obama's executive authority means measures he is taking are adding up to destroying the US Constitution.
Those are the three premise of the lawsuit that is prohibiting 5 million Undocumented from carrying on with their lives without worrying about deportation. The words stating, "...I changed the law" by President Obama 22 times, the alleged bootstrapping and some nonsense in the Federalist papers.
That's all of it. There is no basis for the lawsuit, Congress has not acted to legislate Immigration Reform and the President's Executive Order is being postponed because of an activist judge and President Obama's respect for the process of our legal system.
The Federalist Papers (click here) can be called "The paranoia of the colonists" and they are not the US Constitution.
Conclusion section of the Federalist Papers:
To the People of the State of New York:
ACCORDING to the formal division of the subject of these papers, announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points: "the analogy of the proposed government to your own State constitution," and "the additional security which its adoption will afford to republican government, to liberty, and to property." But these heads have been so fully anticipated and exhausted in the progress of the work, that it would now scarcely be possible to do any thing more than repeat, in a more dilated form, what has been heretofore said, which the advanced stage of the question, and the time already spent upon it, conspire to forbid....
They are a framework of which laws or better said a state's constitution can be written. It was an intellectual exercise to provide a document that would allow consistency in understanding freedom. The USA is an experiment. It started over 200 years ago and the Founding Fathers while hopeful never expected it to hold up centuries. The Federalist Papers are interesting. They show the thinking of some of the most important people in the construction of our democracy, but, they are not law and have no place in any legal proceedings.
It is completely obvious the Republicans are engaged in racism and have no real reasons to OBSTRUCT immigration reform.
Ask Ted Cruz what his plans are for immigration reform and where he can point to it in The Federalist Papers. And make sure he includes his birth certificate. I think there might be a reference to that in the Federalist Papers somewhere.
The Constitution’s Natural Born Citizenship Clause states that “no person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The Founding Fathers, there were no women, didn't know who should be President because they were a citizen of a colony of England. The land they were standing on had a sovereignty and a name. So, when they wrote the Constitution they basically IMMIGRATED from a British colony to the USA of 13 states. The constitutionally sound policy of a natural citizen had to start somewhere.
