Wikipedia? Nice find. LOL.

Where the wiki reference saying it was "announced by Obama"? There is at one because it was derived from the start to not be an EO to avoid the level of scrutiny that attaches to an EO.

Anyone that uses the terms "executive order" interchangeably with "executive memo" doesn't know much.

DACA is not a EO. Nothing you've posted says it's an executive order. You didn't provide a link to an EO. It wasn't even signed by Obama (likely by design)

That doesn't make it any less terrible, but at least learn the facts behind the "law" Obama made through this DHS.

Im Gipper said:

---

Wikipedia? Nice find. LOL.

Where the wiki reference saying it was "announced by Obama"? There is at one because it was derived from the start to not be an EO to avoid the level of scrutiny that attaches to an EO.

Anyone that uses the terms "executive order" interchangeably with "executive memo" doesn't know much.

DACA is not a EO. Nothing you've posted says it's an executive order. You didn't provide a link to an EO. It wasn't even signed by Obama (likely by design)

That doesn't make it any less terrible, but at least learn the facts behind the "law" Obama made through this DHS.

---

Oh, so if you issue an executive memo, telling the agencies to essentially make law, that is different than an EO that essentially makes law.

Well then, that makes what obozo did a ok.

Go look for someone that thinks what Obama DHS did was okay.

The reason this makes a difference is because If DACA was an EO, Trunp could have easily stopped it. But because it was an agency action, the administrative procedure act (APA) applied. Roberts decided that even though the APA was not followed in starting DACA, the Trump DHS had to follow APA to get rid of it. Which they are now doing.

Don't get me started on the limp-wristed punting by Roberts in his horse manure opinion. Let's circle back to a fact that cannot be disputed. DACA was not an EO.

.

BigRobSA said:

---

Cassius said:

---

txagbear said:

---

I also love hypocrites who used to complain about executive orders

---

EOs suck if not to interpret how laws will be interpreted, which this goes way beyond that, genius. This one sucks, as did all of Obama's EO bullsht.

I bet your leg tingled though when Obama told the IRS not to collect the HC tax from folks who didn't have HC insurance. He passsd a law and. EOed the fck out of it to ignore what he didn't like.

Liberals are pure scum.

---

In both parties.

---

That's why I like this place. It's how much we hate the libs.

This will **** us long term. And not fun **** us. Hate **** us. All it takes is another democrat in power. Can't wait to see what this board does when a Dem president signs an EO declaring mass shootings to be a matter of public health and declare (insert guns/ammo/etc here) to be restricted immediately.

txagbear said:

---

I also love hypocrites who used to complain about executive orders

---

As long as the geniuses in this country keep voting for one party for president and another party in the House or Senate there's going to be executive orders.

Ain't nobody gonna executive order the 2nd amendment.

FunkyKO said:

---

Ain't nobody gonna executive order the 2nd amendment.

---

Never said they would. But saying that they'll declare mass shootings a public health crisis is very easy. Several states have already done it with racism. They'll go unchallenged as they mandate certain racial crimes under their crisis powers.

No president will ban all guns with an EO. He/She will declare a crisis and ban certain guns. Or, as judge Roberts has decided, he/she will sign an EO declaring a certain department will ban certain guns to prevent the "crisis". We had the "assault" weapon ban from 94-04. The precedent is there. It won't be too big of a problem with the right judges in place.

President can't eo guns away.

Requires law change.

Edit...hell I dunno....

FunkyKO said:

---

Ain't nobody gonna executive order the 2nd amendment.

---

I could see an EO supporting the 2nd Amendment. It would play into both Trump's populist and narcissistic instincts.

The great thing about Trump doing this is that now he has to be re-elected, as any successor wouldn't be able to do away with his EO.

FunkyKO said:

---

President can't eo guns away.

Requires law change.

Edit...hell I dunno....

---

And immigrant amnesty.... and tax law... No, an EO can't sweep the 2A away, but it is being shown that an EO can at least be used to do some not so legal stuff

Faustus said:

---

FunkyKO said:

---

Ain't nobody gonna executive order the 2nd amendment.

---

I could see an EO supporting the 2nd Amendment. It would play into both Trump's populist and narcissistic instincts.

---

Trump needs to do an NFA amnesty. He and Barr have the statutory authority to do so but never will as was shown with the whole bump stock debacle.

FunkyKO said:

---

President can't eo guns away.

Requires law change.

Edit...hell I dunno....

---

Does it?

Its really what 5 people say, isn't it?