The DACA Decision and the Judicial Threat to the Rule of Law

National Review ^ | April 25, 2018

[Ancesthntr]

“...the Obama administration granted Dreamers sweeping protections....”

---

Ever notice how people here illegally, but who are likely to vote Democratic if given the chance,”Dreamers,” but those of us who are legal citizens and who simply seek to protect our country and our jobs are called”Deplorables?

[reaganaut1]

Have you figured out who you are supporting for President in 2020? You stated you want somebody other than Trump.

Lets see who runs. If Trump can get North Korea to stop its nuclear program and if he does not get us into a trade war, maybe I'll support him. I suport Trump when I think he's right, as in this thread, and criticize him when I think he's wrong. If that's not enough for Trumpbots, too bad.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

BTTT

[DaveA37]

How can, more importantly WHY are such important issues being decided upon by a single individual when the decision effects the entire nation?. A single person, being allowed to direct the future or control of more than 300 million people based solely on his/her “opinion”? We all have differences of opinion, ruling on YOUR opinion alone should NOT be how this country operates. Can you imagine if we had but one Supreme Court Judge, Ruth G. for example?

[DaveA37]

How can, more importantly WHY are such important issues being decided upon by a single individual when the decision effects the entire nation?. A single person, being allowed to direct the future or control of more than 300 million people based solely on his/her “opinion”? We all have differences of opinion, ruling on YOUR opinion alone should NOT be how this country operates. Can you imagine if we had but one Supreme Court Judge, Ruth G. for example?

Well that’s MY OPINION so Fire away!

[rollo tomasi]

DHS and Sessions did contend that DACA was “illegal” and a legal risk concerning ongoing legislation. This was the problem, because Bates did not buy the government’s argument (And ego probably told him who are they to say if this was unconstitutional) on why.

If Trump and the DHS Secretary just stated that they did not like DACA as a policy in general, then the plaintiffs argument would be a lot more difficult ito convince due to INA and Executive discretion concerning deportation along with National security.

[i_robot73]

IF EOs were held as the tool you suppose, I think we’d not be discussing the topic at hand.

1) *NO* EO (Constitutionally) has the force of Law. But that’s not how govt sees it. “Stroke of pen, law of the land. Cool”.

They have been used to confiscate legal tender, create govt from whole cloth (EPA/etc.) and federalize every\any-thing ‘should the need arise’.

Any EO that deflects from faithfully executing the Law needs be void & null, immediately.

2) Proposes Congress has a duty and faithfully executes pursuant that duty. Any number of examples of just the opposite.

They are most complicit in the farce.

3) Yes, but neither has happened in a great many year, and in no # above single digits.

It is the ‘scape-goat’ of the other 2 branches: “The court has ruled....We can’t do ANYTHING”

5) Like judicial vs. Congress, this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Hell, the States themselves haven’t told Fedzilla to FOAD via 9th/10th...it’s all one big circle-jerk.

[RideForever]

“the POTUS cannot make laws-nor finance any such policy”
_________________________________

Therefore Clinton would be ineligible to run for POTUS because she financed such policy and collected profits up font in exchange for appointments to federal offices and agreements as to statutory wording of legislation during the campaign.