- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 23,585
- Reaction score
- 18,053
- Location
- Indiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Uninversity of Chicago Law School. One of the best around.
And your contention he has subverted the constitution is laughable.
Where was Obama a law professor?
He knows enough that he found a way to subvert the Constitution and gravely damage the nation. We can not rid ourselves of this tyrant fast enough.
It was a vote against BO peep and his policies. All ran against BO. Didn't need anything else.
You should have stopped at "The Father of Lies continues to lie."
And now I see that you support him.
So are you calling University of Chicaco Law School a liar too?
More B.S.
Uninversity of Chicago Law School. One of the best around.
And your contention he has subverted the constitution is laughable.
No. He was never a law professor. You are thinking rabble rouser, community organizer, agitator. Propagandizer.Uninversity of Chicago Law School. One of the best around.
And your contention he has subverted the constitution is laughable.
So says the rabid foaming at the mouth president Obama hater that has no credibility.
I agree. I would like to see legislation presented to the president to secure the southern border. I actually prefer that the states follow the judicial path and leave the federal legislature out of it for right now. This is a distraction at present.
That's right. Texas is suing the Obama Administration now for largely that reason.Its not fair to put the burden of our southern border's immigration issue solely on the backs of the border states. It is a national issue and those few states can't afford the cost of our national immigration on their own.
Its not fair to put the burden of our southern border's immigration issue solely on the backs of the border states. It is a national issue and those few states can't afford the cost of our national immigration on their own.
Regardless of your political leanings, don't you want to ensure that your President doesn't overstep the bounds of what a single person should be able to do vis-a-vis the legal/justice system in your country?
They don't have to Impeach.....they can write up a letter of Disapproval and Censure.
Conservatives, States Set to Launch Legal Blitz Against Obama Over Immigration.....
Opponents said there will likely be a three-pronged legal approach to stymie Obama's moves: Congress could sue the president for constitutional overreach, states could file lawsuits arguing the action strains local finances, or individuals could try to prove they've been harmed by the order. Just hours after the speech, an Arizona sheriff filed suit arguing the reform is unconstitutional.....snip~
Conservatives, States Set to Launch Legal Blitz Against Obama Over Immigration - Video
Sounds to me that such a letter would be the equivalent to a written reprimand but would such a letter really mean to this or any other sitting POTUS? I mean, really now. Does Congress really think that by putting their displeasure of a Presidential action in writing means he'll suddenly stop doing whatever he believes is within his legal power to do under the law? Sure, you get such a letter into the historical record but in the grand scheme of things it means absolutely nothing.
And these articles explain why each and every such lawsuit will fail.
1. Political ply; a prelude to "hopeful" impeachment. Top Republican Admits That Lawsuits Against Obama Are Setting Up Impeachment
2. A brief historical summary of why such a lawsuit will fail; SCOTUS has already ruled in favor of the President for immunity on such presidential action when done in the best interest of the country. Can you sue the president? Kucinich just did.
3. Legal precedent against allowing such lawsuits against the President for two very obvious reasons: a) tying up the legal system, and b) Impeachment in and of itself. Lawsuits against Obama face steep hurdles
Good luck, GOP. Unless it can be proven that the President's delay on implementing the employer mandate tax in Obamacare was not done in the best interest for the country, this will be a fight the GOP will lose.
Excellent - so now step up and provide that answer that has been given many times in this very thread - what exact law can you point to that Obama has violated with this action?
1. Distorting Prosecutorial Discretion
President Obama claims he is entitled to overhaul immigration laws in the name of “prosecutorial discretion.” It is one of those wonderfully fungible phrases in the law. Elastic because it is vague and ambiguous. Useful because it can be easily abused. Mr. Obama has appropriated this doctrine to argue he has near boundless discretion to amend, revise, waive or suspend the execution of immigration laws. As chief executive, he is empowering himself to decide what laws may be enforced or ignored and what persons may come or go across our southern border irrespective of what the law actually states.
In past decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned the executive branch that its prosecutorial discretion, while broad, is not “unfettered.” It is subject to restrictions. The doctrine may not be used to adopt a sweeping policy of non-enforcement of the law. It applies only to decisions not to prosecute or expel specific individuals or small groups of people, typically for exigent reasons like war, civil unrest or political persecution.
By contrast, President Obama is bestowing a wholesale, blanket amnesty for an entire class of nearly 5 million people. He is doing so not for the reasons allowed by law, but for purposes that appear to be purely political. This is a flagrant abuse of prosecutorial discretion. His expansive action exceeds his authority in ways that none of his predecessors ever envisioned. And it is a radical departure from any of the executive actions issued by previous presidents.
It is true that President Ronald Reagan utilized executive action in 1987 to grant a limited deportation reprieve to certain spouses and young children of immigrants. But his action was a logical and direct extension of, not a departure from, an existing amnesty law Congress had already passed. His exemption and a subsequent extension by his successor, President George H. W. Bush, were later incorporated into a new law passed by Congress. The point is instructive. The actions by Reagan and Bush are not a supporting precedent for Mr. Obama, but an important limiting principle of presidential authority.
However, President Obama has commandeered this elastic doctrine of prosecutorial discretion and stretched or manipulated it beyond all recognition and reason. It has become his political Gumby toy with which he exerts his will whenever he fails to get his way with Congress. He contorts the word “discretion” to adopt a capacious policy -- his own policy -- to ban full enforcement of a duly enacted immigration statute. He treats the doctrine as a magical incantation shielding his arbitrariness.
2. Usurping Legislative Authority
Our Constitution clearly delineates a separation of powers. Congress is vested with writing laws and the President is charged with executing those laws. This is especially true when it comes to immigration.
At the end of the 19th century, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had “plenary power” (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, “Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.”
Yet President Obama has decided to usurp this power by unilateral directive, unconstrained by established checks and balances. In so doing, he is granting himself extra-constitutional authority and upsetting the carefully balanced separation of powers. He is also subverting the nucleus of our constitutional design: the rule of law.
3. Breaching His Sworn Duty
President Obama’s decision that existing laws shall not be enforced against some 5 million illegal immigrants violates his sworn constitutional duty. Article II, Section 3 requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Nowhere is it written that the chief executive is granted the latitude to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. He cannot ignore or nullify laws he does not like because the constitution gives him no power not to execute laws. To infer such latitude would invite an authoritarian rule anathema to our founding fathers’ vision. President Obama admitted as much when he said, “The fact of the matter is, there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.” He was specifically talking about immigration laws.
In 1996, Congress passed a law which requires federal immigration agents to deport illegal immigrants, with few exceptions. The statutory language is mandatory. Thus, whatever prosecutorial discretion which may have existed previously, was specifically eliminated by that legislative act. Yet, the President is now, in effect, ordering those agents to break the law. He cannot, on his own, engage in a de facto repeal of this law by executive action. To do so would be, quite simply, lawlessness and a dereliction of his duty.
If President Obama can refuse to enforce a valid federal law affecting millions of people, are there any limits to his powers? After all, he has frequently threatened, “Where Congress won’t act, I will.” What is to stop him from rewriting other laws with which he disagrees? Or to act where Congress has declined or refused to act? Can he abolish certain tax laws because Congress chooses to keep them? Can he banish all sources of energy except renewables to advance his agenda on climate change? If so, why even have a legislative branch of government? What’s the point of a Constitution which enumerates and circumscribes powers and duties?
Men like Madison, Jefferson and Adams were keenly aware of the tyranny and corruption of authority concentrated in too few hands. They knew the thirst for power posed an existential danger to those who cherish freedom. Their genius was in crafting a sustaining document that would end the arrogance of one man rule and protect the inherent rights of all men. They knew that absolute power corrupts.
And they feared future presidents like Mr. Obama.
In the history of our republic, no president has dared turn his high office into an instrument of unrestrained power. They held too much respect for their fellow citizens than to abuse or misuse the principles of our democracy. Even Lincoln’s actions to preserve the nation during the Civil War were grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law.
But, like the title of his autobiography, Mr. Obama’s measure of himself seems defined by the word “audacity.” It is no more evident than now.
Three things that are illegal about Obama's immigration plan | Fox News
No they don't think he will stop doing whatever he wants. Its for the record.....does the letter of Disapproval go down on The record? Is it like a stain or black mark on a record? Its not suppose to do anything other than that.
As for the attorney deal.....do you think a Border State can sue for all the services it has to provide? Why do Attorney General's think that is so?
Ultimately we will have to wait to see what the courts say, but just as you believe that he is within his power, and broke no law, I believe he has....
I assume you presume that by not pursuing illegals in border states, the public service systems would be overwhelmed in those states. I don't think these states would be subject to any harm simply because illegal aliens are already using said systems. Furthermore, federal and in some cases state laws allow it (i.e., access to public health services, enrollment in public schools, English language training, etc.). Law enforcement might trying to claim they would be overwhelmed, but the EO provides provision to go after those illegal aliens who commit criminal acts AND deport them.
So, I don't think the states could make such claims considering most if not all are already fully engaged in providing such public services even before this EO was ever made. As such, individuals and the states would not have legal stating to claim legal, moral, financial or even social harm.
Sure, but that doesn't change the legalities of a lawsuit.
thank you for posting that - again. I missed it the first time.
I think much of what you posted is what many here have already stated - past presidents of both parties have expanded executive powers and have gotten away with it due to a wiling Congress and Courts which failed to stop them. This has been going on for a very long time now.
So why the line in the sand now at this time and with this President over this issue?
Please let me correct one false impression: I do NOT think the actual powers in the US Constitution support the actions of Obama here. I further think they are NOT what what was written nor envisioned for the powers of the President.
My point is different: that particular ship has long ago sailed and Congress and the Courts have been complicit in allowing the expansion of the imperial presidency. So today we are at a situation where the balance of power is indeed out of whack and not what the Constitution wanted it to be.
So we then enter a political realm as to what to do about it and how.
I agree with you that the courts will have the final say. In the end, I strongly suspect that the actions will be upheld and ruled as legal.
If they have to use a states services.....then grievances can be shown. Also the Fed will more than likely have to reimburse. Which I'll bet they would do, rather than let it get to SCOTUS.
Good morning Rocket - I'm missing your point. You don't believe the House has standing to launch such a lawsuit?
Well stated hay....
Thank you for saying that. After I posted I recalled having debated such ideas a very long time ago in college. I debated for two years on the college team and here was the topic for one of the years
RESOLVED: That executive control of United States foreign policy should be significantly curtailed.
The year was 1968/69. 45 years ago in a different America and people were even then concerned about growing presidential power that needed to be curtailed.
Now just imagine how beyond even that year the power of the Executive Branch has been expanded and you can really see a problem here.
But they're very likely already using state services. Thus, no harm done. Still, you are correct in that the remedy here would be to throw more money at the states to compensate accordingly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?