Monday, September 4, 2017

Lewandowski: If Trump scraps DACA, it's because it's 'unconstitutional'

Via Billy

Lewandowski: If Trump scraps DACA, it's because it's 'unconstitutional'

Corey Lewandowski said ahead of President Trump's highly anticipated announcement Tuesday that if Trump decides to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program it is because it is "unconstitutional."

"If the president does rescind this, it's because it's been unconstitutional. We know that for sure," Lewandowki, Trump's former campaign manager and ally, said during an interview on Fox News shared Monday.

"And it's the president's prerogative to inject in this," he continued. "But here's my concern, all of a sudden we're hearing from leaders in Congress who are saying, 'Oh Mr. President, give us the opportunity to act."

Lewandowski said Congress has had years to act on the issue.

More @ The Hill

9 comments:

  1. I have mixed feelings about DACA. On one hand, they are illegal and don't belong here. On the other, they are here through no fault of their own and have grown up as Americans. Tough call. But two things are obvious. If Obama had pursued legislation instead of issuing an executive order, the lazy approach, it would be law and could not be repealed by executive order. If Congress, which appears to have found religion, had passed legislation it, again, would be law. Instead a lazy President and a lazy Congress didn't do their jobs leaving us with an executive order that can be reversed with the stroke of a pen. If Trump repeals the executive order Congress could pass a DACA law to make it legal? Personally I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Trump repeals the executive order Congress could pass a DACA law to make it legal?

      Could but will they?

      Delete
  2. This is great. It's now up to voters and Congress.

    We stopped Congress from amnesty under Obama. If Trump has a movement, then it will stop Congress again.

    If Congress votes for amnesty, we can primary them all come 2018. With the Internet here, Congress has to listen to voters more and donors less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's now up to voters and Congress.

      If they get off their butts.

      Delete
    2. Ann Coulter seems concerned. Who knows?

      Since Trump is already blamed, he should maybe just end it immediately. But it is unfair that he's blamed for *everything*.

      I'm a believer in Trump again. I'm starting to sound bipolar on Trump, haha.

      Regardless: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/905047095488516098

      This sounds excellent. Also see this: https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/905143268165296129

      If he pulls out from S. Korea: Huge win imo. I'd have to pinch myself to be sure I'm not dreaming.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, but is this really correct?

      "The US military presence is the biggest obstacle to the resolution of the crisis."

      Delete
    4. I believe it is, yes. You might need to read Raimondo's other articles on NK to understand his argument.

      China defends NK to prevent the US from putting a base on China's borders, as the US has along Russia's borders.

      And NK is pursuing nukes out of fear that the US will overthrow its regime. The joke is that Libya got rid of its WMD, and it was overthrown. So, WMD can help prevent US intervention...

      NK is angry most recently over the US-SK annual mock-invasion of NK, which NK hates. Russia and China both have asked the US to stop doing it.

      SK had a Sunshine Policy of appeasement with NK. It was working but was ended by the US.

      The US wants to justify keeping the base there, so it could shoot down missiles from China. That makes SK a target should the US and China go to war.

      Obviously the US and China won't go to war, but the two powers maneuver like that.

      I agree with Raimondo that taunting China encourages it to build up militarily and also strengthens the Chinese state. It's like in 1984: Perpetual war.

      It would be better if we left, in my view. Also, if KORUS and other favourable trade were ended, SK would have less motive to tolerate the US base. And I want better trade deals. I would prefer to allow SK to develop its own nukes and military defences.

      I'm no libertarian, but I do agree with them often on foreign policy.

      China is wary: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-06/china-holds-military-exercise-along-north-korea-border

      Delete
    5. https://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2017/09/trey-gowdy-subpoenas-fbi-doj-including.html

      Delete