Tuesday, January 13, 2015

King Buckwheat

The Obamissariat 

Remember those WWJD bracelets that were so popular in the ’90s? Well, an expert at the Law Library of Congress — a non-partisan branch of the Library of Congress that has advised Congress and the Supreme Court since 1832 — tackled a slightly different question: What would George III do when faced with a law he didn’t like?

Not even the King of England at the time of the American Revolution had the authority to suspend laws unilaterally, the Law Library expert wrote in a memorandum to the Senate committee tasked with responding to President Obama’s recent executive orders on the enforcement of immigration law.

“The largest untapped constituency in American politics are the 300 million American citizens who have been completely left out of the immigration debate,” Sessions writes in the memo.
One hundred years before the American Revolution, another British king had “attempted to suspend a number of laws,” contributing to the onset of the Glorious Revolution in England, a senior foreign-law specialist at the Law Library writes in the memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “King George III,” the specialist goes on to remind the committee, “was thus unable to enact or repeal any laws unilaterally without the involvement of Parliament.”

The memo, obtained by National Review Online, was written in response to a request by Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), according to a top aide in his office. It does not address the question of whether Obama’s latest executive actions amount to a suspension of the laws, although Obama and other Democrats referred to such orders as a decision to “suspend” deportations. But it is a clear and incendiary jab at the president, just days before House and Senate Republicans are scheduled to attend a joint retreat in Pennsylvania to discuss their agenda for the 115th Congress.
At the top of the list: Deciding on a response to Obama’s decision to “suspend” deportations of millions of illegal immigrants, who will instead receive some of the benefits of legal status. The GOP regards Obama’s executive orders as a way of rewriting the law without congressional input. House Republicans decided to use a Department of Homeland Security–funding bill to block implementation of the orders issued in November, as well as other related immigration-policy decisions. That bill may struggle in the Senate, where some Republicans up for reelection in Democratic-leaning states worry about a political backlash.

One such Republican, Senator Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), told Politico that the House bill “leads us to a potential government shutdown scenario, which is a self-inflicted political wound for Republicans.” Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who helped write the Gang of Eight immigration bill that died in the House, has signaled a willingness to separate the DHS funding from an attempt to restrain Obama. “Defunding that part of the bill that deals with enforcing the executive order makes sense, but we can’t go too far here, because look what happened in Paris,” Graham said last week. “The Department of Homeland Security needs to be up and running.”

Sessions disagrees. “A constitutional breach of this magnitude demands nothing less than a vigorous, public, disciplined campaign to rally the nation behind a Republican effort to deny the president the funds he would need to carry it out,” he writes in a 23-page “immigration handbook” distributed to every congressional Republican on Monday and obtained by NRO. To politicians who worry about losing votes over the issue, Sessions replies by citing the midterm-election results and a referendum in the blue state of Oregon that saw voters overturn a law granting drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. [Continued]

One difference: While George III was insane, his Parliament was not.


Anonymous said...

I hope everyone has prepared themselves for the "big sell out", {yet another one}. With Boner's big cave on the CRumulus he supposedly carved out this little niche in the DHS Funding. While providing funding for every other single uhbama nightmare.

Does anyone {perhaps with the exception of Mitchell} believe that the repubics are going to have the fortitude, orbs, courage and testosterone to stare uhbama down and stick to their guns on this and push uhbama to the point of closing down the gubermint?

Especially after the events that happened in France in the last week?

Never, ever going to happen, not with this crowd.

{Sessions is one of the bravest souls to ever walk through that Building }

Anonymous said...

That's irrelevant because Captain Benghazi isn't president, or even a king - He's a god. Just ask him or Valjar.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Anonymous said...

Unless we sever our lives from the grip of Washington, we all go down the drain. We will spin down fighting the guy with the polar opposite views. We will all be equally flushed. -Anymouse

Anonymous said...

Here you go, start raising the white flag. . . .

Feckless Cowards

A push by House Republicans to reverse President Obama’s executive action on immigration has put their vulnerable Senate counterparts in a tough electoral spot.

The GOP faces a much tougher 2016 map, and Hispanic groups are warning of political fallout over the issue of deportations at a time when the party is trying to win the White House and defend its new Senate majority.

Worried about their party’s political fate, centrist Senate Republicans are balking at the prospect of a messy fight with the president.

The repubic surrender plan continues at the link


Anonymous said...

Link above broke, so go here. . .

The Hill

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.