Skip to comments.House Votes to Defund Obama’s Illegal Executive Order For The DREAM ACT
Posted on 06/06/2013 6:08:25 PM PDT by blueyon
The House voted to defund Obamas DREAM policy. Keep in mind that the policy was implemented illegally via executive order. Executive orders are not to be used to implement law. One can only hope that sanity will continue to prevail on the illegal executive orders meant to bypass the laws of this constitutional republic.
Any immigration laws should also be defeated under this political environment.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Almost too good to be true
I don’t see the “humor” or “satire” keywords. Is this real?
WOO - HOO!!!!!
I must be dreaming. Never thought this would happen.
If so, the House of reps. should begin defunding the IRS, EPA, NSA and all the damn alphabet departments until they get the message.
I can dream can’t I?
Can I dare to DREAM that the GOP is taking advantage of the scandals and Obama’s weakness?
Obama needs to be sued for all the damage he has done, losses he has caused. His salary and benefits should be defunded.
Even better news...
The judge handling the [ICE] case has already indicated that he is likely to rule against the administration.
Meaning the administration will not be allowed to refuse to enforce the law.
If true...this could be a sign that the house is going to trash the nation-killing immigration bill the gang of 8 has been working on.
Did Boehner take a few days off?
So what, exactly, have we defunded? And what are the states going to get stuck with?
Boner is too busy standing in a corner somewhere wiping his eyes.
Good. Now defund Obamacare.
If Obama's executive order means they are only selectively enforcing immigration, then they are defunding activity that isn't taking place. Aren't they? Obama will simply say, it didn't cost us anything to not enforce immigration, and we will be sure to not do it again.
Maybe while they are at it, and being the body from which all bills of revenue must originate, they can cut Robert’s obamneycare “tax” to zero.
They can keep voting on it but it won’t go anywhere. They need to shut the place down for a few months..
Oooo! That's gonna leave a mark! Good one, fine sir!
Doesn’t Dear Leader have to sign this?
Doesnt Dear Leader have to sign this?
* Think I read somewhere that this is an amendment attached to DHS bill & Dingy already said if this language is included, it’s DOA in the Senate.
The House knows this so I’m hoping this is a warning shot across the aisle that Gang of Ocho is also DOA.
Interesting... because when I spoke with my reps’ aide today, I was told (misinformed?) there is “nothing Congress can do” in regard to executive orders.
Nope. The House has to pass funding. If they don’t, the Senate can’t change that. Hence the phrase “The House holds the purse strings.”
A token “save face” move....the Amnesty will be passed in the next two weeks, and this doesn’t mean crap anymore....
I don't think the Senate needs to go along. The House holds the purse strings.
That is my understanding anyway.
The reason the House is considered to hold the purse strings, is because any spending bill is required by the constitution to originate in the house. But the Senate still has to go along as well as the President before any spending bill becomes law. Unless of course the President's veto is overridden and then the President doesn't matter.
Likewise, any bill to defund, would also need the Senate's approval as well as the President's signature or a veto override.
The vote clearly lets the President know that the House doesn't approve of his dream act executive order. But without the Senate it's nothing more than a nice strongly worded letter.
And I'm still confused about what it means to defund non-enforcement of the law.
Maybe we will work to keep the House in Republican hands or do you all want to just let the socialists/democrats have it ALL?
This was described as a vote to “defund”, implying most likely that the funding was previously approved. In which case the Senate and President’s signature are needed.
The other possibility, is that it’s an appropriation bill, but that does still take the Senate and President’s approval. Without that the entire appropriation bill goes down, and so far the house has been too gutless to shut the government down.
Did Boehner take a few days off?
Yes, I read a story that said Boehner has been outside the beltway doing more fundraising than the kenyan. That makes me nervous.
Oh, let it be so.
Perhaps this 'PRISM' leak of epic proportions was done by team 0bama today to (not only blame something on Bush) detract from this SLAP DOWN of his illegal executive order.
Now if we can just get Mike Zullo to throw a few more bombshells regarding 0bama's fake bc, or forged ssc, or use of stolen social security number(s), this will be a very baaaaaaaaaaaaad year for 0bama. LOL
Here's a dooooooozy!:
Press release: Shocking new revelation! The same Judge that signed an order allowing search and seizure of phone records of millions of innocent U.S. citizens, refused to allow to include in Obamacare case any evidence showing Obama using all forged and fraudulently obtained IDs
I understood from the article that Obama was making law. Something he can not constitutionally do, so it is invalid and can not get funding.
So why should the senate or the president have any say-so over the house decision not to fund ?
If Obama is making law, that is unconstitutional. And if Obama is spending funds on something that was not authorized by Congress, that is also unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional whether or not Congress funded it.
So the house voting to defund something that is unconstitutional has zero effect, as Obama is already in violation of the Constitution and the house vote is unlikely to change it.
If Congress previously passed laws authorizing funds and Obama was using them for his dream act executive order, then the House vote to defund still no effect because it does need the Senate and the President’s signature to modify previously passed law.
Nonetheless, Obama’s executive order directs the executive branch to only selectively enforce the law. In other words, Congress has funded enforcing the law. Obama is not doing it. It doesn’t cost anything to not do something.
So how do you defund non-enforcement of a law, when it didn’t cost anything to not enforce the law in the first place?
You seem to know something about this, so I ask you:
What can the House do to impede, delay or deny funding for Obama’s projects?
His expenditures are targeted to enrich his followers. Limit his money, and they can undercut his support.
And I was falling for it.
I would suggest you call again and maybe speak with someone else...
“Congress cannot directly vote to override an executive order in the way they can a veto. Instead, Congress must pass a bill canceling or changing the order in a manner they see fit. The president will typically veto that bill, and then Congress can try to override the veto of that second bill. The Supreme Court can also declare an executive order to be unconstitutional. Congressional cancellation of an order is extremely rare.” http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/preslegpower.htm
I'm not sure I know anything more than the rest of the freepers when it comes to this.
If it's something like the dream act executive order, where Obama's project consists of not doing something (not enforcing immgration laws), I don't know. How do you defund doing nothing? Remedies include going to court to try to force Obama to enforce the law. We won a recent court battle on immigration in Federal court which told Obama that he couldn't selectively enforce the law. Whether that changes Obama's actions, we'll have to see. But ultimately if Obama continues to refuse to enforce, impeachment is the only remedy.
As for other Obama projects where the projects do cost funds. The remedy really depends on the situation.
If we are talking about funding which has not yet been approved by Congress, the house has a lot more power. But so far they've been pretty timid in exercising that power. They have to get the Senate to agree to any spending bill, which means the House can shut down the government completely, but the Senate has been willing to call their bluff. And the House hasn't wanted to cross that line, because it backfired at the polls the last time Congress did that. Anything short of a complete government shut down needs Senate approval.
That's apparently why they went to this sequester strategy. The Senate was so unagreeable, that the house eventually resorted to working out an agreement for automatic spending cuts (cuts = limited increases, not real cuts) in exchange for a spending bill that met with Senate approval. The house avoided shutting down government and got at least some limits in place in return. Still no detailed budget, which is one of the things that gives Obama a lot of leeway in spending.
We need to return to detailed budgets, but it's going to take a change in control in the Senate to do that.
I think the house should play hard ball and fund each department with a separate appropriations bill. The Senate and the President have promised to veto anything like that. But the house would have the moral high ground, and could say, "Hey, we passed an appropriations bill for that and the senate refused. Therefore the shutdown is the Senate's fault not ours. But it's a risky strategy."
Well, there we have it:
“Congressional cancellation of an order is extremely rare.”
Thus, we can conclude that our representatives have no ba@@s?
This must be a joke.
No way do the House Republicans have the spine to tell the African communist punk, “no”.
Can’t the Constitutionality of EO’s be challenged by Congress in the SCOTUS? Can the President overturn Federal Law (U.S. Constitution) with impunity? I don’t think so.
Defunding it is a back door to canceling it.
“Good. Now defund Obamacare.”
Ooops. You are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.