REPUBLICANS CAN'T STOP OBAMA

A Government Shutdown Can't Stop Obama's Immigration Plan—and John Boehner Knows It
“[T]he Appropriations process cannot be used to 'de-fund' the [relevant] agency,” he explained in a pre-Thanksgiving statement. “The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.”

SO, IN SPITE OF THEIR OUTCRIES, THEIR WILD VOWS TO STOP  OBAMA ON EVERY TURN, EITHER THE GOP IS FULL TO THE TOP OF THOSE IGNORANT TO LAW, OR THEY SIMPLY LIKE TO LIE.

Several Republicans opposed to Obama’s immigration move claim they can pass a spending bill that cuts out the funding to enforce it.

“I’m for sending money to fund everything except those branches that are affected by this, then cutting off the funding to the very edict that he will deliver,” Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the most vocal opponents of comprehensive immigration reform in Washington, said Thursday. “We say, ‘None of the funds being used in this act shall be used to carry out executive edict —’ and then we define it.”

But it’s not that simple. Obama’s action is expected to be carried out by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which isn’t funded by Congress’s annual spending bills. Instead, it’s self-funded by application and petition fees. So how could Congress defund something it isn’t funding in the first place?

King , SILLY TWIT, doesn’t see this as an obstacle to his plan. “I have that language already written. It says, ‘No fees either,’” King said.

Other 'Publicans are also just THAT stupid, but HARK! A voice , nay TWO voices of, if not reason, maybe a better knowledge of the ACTUAL LAWS involved?
And they are BOTH Republicanos!

You see,  using appropriations bills to stop spending that doesn’t happen under the appropriation bill is tricky, to say the least. “It would take a change of law, an authorization of law” to change the underlying statute, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, told reporters Thursday, throwing water on the idea that his committee will try to block Obama through the spending process.

“It depends to some degree on what the executive order is, and we don’t know that yet. But if it is something that is funded by fees, defunding doesn’t work,” Representative Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said Thursday.

 BUT WAIT!
IT GETS WORSE FOR THE GOP!
Even if the House figures out a way to put language into a spending bill that prohibits USCIS from carrying out Obama’s order, either the Senate would strip that language out or the president would veto it, leading to a government shutdown. In a shutdown scenario, however, USCIS would still be funded and would be able to carry out Obama’s executive action, even as most of the government ceases to operate.

ANOTHER POINTLESS SHUTDOWN would defeat top Republicans’ goal of proving that they can govern responsibly after the midterms, rather than lurching from one crisis to the next.
ANOTHER DUMB SHUTDOWN IS NOT A VOTE-GETTER AND THEY KNOW IT.
So what other options do they have? Not many.

King said he wanted to see the House pass a resolution denouncing the president’s action and then vote to censure him—both symbolic moves that wouldn’t block Obama’s order. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, [BY WAY OF CANADA]  a Tea Party leader and top Obama hater, floated the idea of refusing to confirm any of the president’s judicial or executive appointments in the next Congress.
But Republicans were expected to do that regardless.
That's just the way they roll.
SORRY, TEDDY-KINS, TRY AGAIN!

Legally the Republicans have a tough case on the idiotic lawsuit.

 There is a long history of presidents using executive authority on immigration matters.
REAGAN AND BOTH BUSHES USED EXEC ORDERS TO DO THE VERY SAME THING OBAMA JUST DID!
UH-OHHH!
DIDN'T BONER & CO. KNOW THAT?
PROBABLY NOT...STRONG DRINK KILLS BRAIN CELLS.

REAL legal experts largely agree that the president has wide latitude when it comes to U.S. immigration laws. Even the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea that the president has “broad discretion” on immigration matters. In 2012, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy described this power in a 5-3 opinion striking down portions of Arizona’s extreme anti-undocumented-immigration bill.

“A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials,” Kennedy wrote in the opinion, which was joined by the court’s conservative chief justice, John Roberts. “Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.”

Even if a judge did agree to hear the case, it could take YEARS for anything to come of it.

There’s always impeachment, but Republicans are NOT talking that up as an option.

“I think that’s been ruled out,” Huelskamp said. King likewise downplayed the idea, evidence that the Republicans know impeachment would turn public opinion against them.
WELL, IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST BOTH BUSH PREZZES.
REAGAN AS WELL.
On March 6, 1987 Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against President Ronald Reagan over the Iran-Contra mess..
On January 16, 1991, H. Res. 34, to impeach President George H. W. Bush [BUSH1] for starting the Gulf War.

GEORGE W. BUSH ALMOST IMPEACHED 6 SEPARATE TIMES!
(Not in chronological order)
1~On June 10, 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment  against George W. Bush [BUSH2] to the U.S. House of Representatives.
 The House voted 251 IN FAVOR OF to 166 against to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on June 11, where no further action was taken on it.
PREVIOUSLY:
2~On June 16, 2005 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) assembled an unofficial meeting to discuss the Downing Street memo and to consider grounds for impeachment.

3~Conyers filed a resolution on December 18, 2005 to create an investigative committee to consider impeachment. His resolution gained 38 co-sponsors before it expired at the end of the 109th Congress.

4~Conyers filed again Jan. 20, 2006, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) also called for the committee to explore whether Bush should face impeachment, stemming from his decision to authorize domestic surveillance without court review.

5~Keith Ellison was the leading figure behind the resolution to impeach Bush brought to the Minnesota State House of Representatives in May 2006. Ellison was elected to the United States House of Representatives in November 2006. During the campaign and when he was named to the House Judiciary Committee, Ellison repeatedly called for a possible impeachment.

5 1/2~ In July 2007, Nancy Pelosi stated that she "would probably advocate" impeaching Bush if she were not in the House nor Speaker of the House.
 November 2007, Joe Biden, then a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, stated that he would move to impeach if President Bush were to bomb Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

6~ On December 8, 2006 (the last day of the 109th Congress), then-Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) submitted a resolution, H. Res. 1106. to impeach G.W.  The bill expired along with the 109th Congress.

7~On July 14, 2008, Kucinich introduced a new impeachment resolution (H.Res. 1345) limited to a single count.

The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times but less than a third have led to full impeachments. Just eight—all federal judges—have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Outside of the 15 federal judges impeached by the House, two Presidents (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton in 1998), a cabinet secretary (William Belknap in 1876), and a U.S. Senator (William Blount of North Carolina in 1797) have also been impeached.

“If anyone suggests [impeachment], I hope they just put a bullet to my head, ’cause that’s not a viable option either,” said Mike Simpson, a more moderate Republican who is in favor of passing comprehensive reform.

Freshman Rep. Kent Bentivolio, R-Mich., fanned the flames by saying an Obama impeachment would be a "dream come true," though the lawyers he consulted on the matter told him to keep dreaming. 

Based on what we know now, President Obama is as likely to be impeached as he is to be a lottery pick in next year's NBA draft.

There is a final option. House Republicans could do what they have failed to do for the past many years and pass comprehensive immigration reform that would replace the president’s order with bipartisan legislation. After all, if Republicans had already passed a comprehensive plan, Obama wouldn’t be taking action on his own.
NOR WOULD HAVE REAGAN, OR THE TWO BUSHES!

“Pass an immigration bill,” Simpson said, listing the possible routes Republicans could take... ultimately we’ve got to solve the problem. So why not just start doing it?”

BETTER LEGAL MINDS HAVE COME UP WITH 6 OPTIONS FOR ACTION, AND HAVE DISMISSED ALL OF THEM.
1~ GO TO THE SUPREME COURT.
NO, this has failed repeatedly and would take YEARS!
2~ SUE THE PREZ.
NO. SEE ABOVE.
3~ LET THE STATES SUE.
NO.  SEE ABOVE.
4~ DEFUND THE GOVERNMENT.
NO. The money that will implement this is NOT doled out/controlled by by Congress. Even in FULL SHUTDOWN, the immigration order WILL be carried out. The funding comes from FEES.
Congress would have to pass NEW laws to change this, and that would take YEARS.
5~ TRY TO REPEAL THE EXEC ORDER.
NO. Only 4% of executive orders were successfully changed in ANY way IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. A FIGHT WOULD TAKE YEARS.
6~ IMPEACH OBAMA.
NO.  The chances that would ever work are slim to none.
3 reasons:
#1 His Exec Order is identical to previous EOs by OTHER presidents.
#2 Half the Republicans have said they won't go there.
#3 Even if he was impeached, see 1 through 5 above, years of a futile fight loom.

There is a 4th reason some Republicans mention in saying why THEY won't vote to impeach.
Minority voters will have a bigger share of the voting population nationally in two years.
The very ones whom the GOP have tried to keep away from the polling places are determined to get those "Voter ID cards" so they can thank the ones who made them necessary AT THE POLLS.

BOTTOM LINE?
EVERYTHING THE  GOP IS DOING OR MAY DO TO STOP OBAMA ON ANY POINT IS FUTILE, A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY, AND DOOMED TO FAILURE!
OBAMA HAS A CRACKER-JACK LEGAL TEAM.
BOEHNER, ET AL?
THEY HAVE EACH OTHER.

FOLD YOUR TENTS, GO HOME.
SHOW'S OVER.

SOURCES:
http://www.newsweek.com/what-can-gop-do-stop-obamas-immigration-orders-285931  

http://news.yahoo.com/constitutional-options-remain-gop-block-obama-executive-order-114215943--politics.html  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/republican-congress-obamacare_n_6102854.html 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120462/gop-plan-de-fund-dhs-over-obamas-immigration-plan-wont-work

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/20/republicans-stop-obama-gop-told-impossible-defund-immigration-executive-orders.html