The ENFORCE act won't address the real problem of executive overreach because it is a partisan gimmick with no chance of becoming law. Its sponsors in the House knew this in advance.<quoted text>
1) lol- There's a shocker. Curious? Of course you are, Willie. I've rarely seen you address a subject posed by someone other than a liberal without thoroughly checking in advance for any diabolical booby-traps we may have set. Your need to qualify and post disclaimers to most questions and comments coming from anyone other than a liberal, are carefully vetted, clarified, dissected and inspected for suspicious intent before you'll >almost< address it. It's borderline pathological with you.
2) It doesn't, so put down your weapon. I just felt like asking you a question and posed it when the mood struck. Breathe, Willie, breathe. There's is nothing sinister going on here.
4) If I wanted to discuss trends, I would have something clever like: " let's discuss trends." I want to talk about Obama.
5a) It's not the former, it's the latter but for the record, Trey Gowdy had an alibi during the Bush years. He was a federal prosecutor in SC and didn't become a congressman until 2011. My whereabouts during the Bush years are irrelevant.
5b) For the 2nd time. I want to talk about Obama's record. If I had wanted to discuss his predecessors and "trends" I would have said so. Try and live with the inconvenience.
6) For the 3rd time, I said nothing about "trends." You're trying to rewrite my post. Wanna go for 4?
7a) LOL! And there it is! For the 4th time, I wasn't discussing "trends."
7b) Maybe you could elaborate with specifics on why the Enforce the Law act "wouldn't address" the problem and wouldn't be a positive tool to aid in limiting presidential power by providing the legislative branch legal standing with which to oppose executive overreach.
8) Where you stand, I guess, is somewhere in Indiana and besides having an unlimited supply of liberal cow fertilizer, I have no idea what you own.
Now, isn't this fun? I pose a comment and question to you. You dissect it like a suspicious crazy person. I respond to your crazy person dissection and toss the dissected mess back in your lap and now you get re-dissect the dissection until the original intent is lost or due to exasperation, I give up. Whichever comes fist.
They (or at least most of them) are smart enough to know how this tool could have been used in the hands of the Pelosi House during the Bush Administration, for example.
I'm also not sure that, under the law, you can compare waiving statutory ACA deadlines or the 5 year welfare limit with failure to prosecute even a whole class of crimes (drug and immigration have come up in some discussions of the ENFORCE act I've read).
That's just off the top of my head. I haven't read the bill because it has no chance of passing the Senate.