Few quick thoughts-
1) DACA is a program created by EO, therefore it is not law per se, it is policy ( the POTUS cannot make laws-nor finance any such policy).
2) EOs are often absorbed by congress in funding bills, else there is no means to execute the policy, therefore congress can void any ability to enact policy driven by any means, especially by EO.
3) Any judge that declares any EO driven policy whether funded by congress or not, as law must be called to the carpet by both the congress and the administration.
4) Any administration that decides to change EO driven policy, whether or not it is funded by congress, is well within its power to so do. To allow a judge or even congress, absent a duly passed law, to interfere with its decision on policy matters, ought to and should, tell them to a) stay in their lane and butt out, or b) tell them to pass a law that then requires the administration to act in good faith to uphold that law.
5) Just as any unlawful act by the administration, or congress or the judiciary is null and void on its face, the other co-equal branches need to squash the judiciary when they over step. The Judiciary cannot by default enact laws, only can they advise on what is within the law as it is written.
In conclusion, the administration needs to declare that the DACA is unlawful on its face, not a law and therefore discretionary in its scope and that within that discretion granted the executive, it is declared null and void by the same power that enacted the policy in the first place. Then simply refuse to discuss it further, enforce the new policy ( which means to do nothing regarding the provisions of DACA since there is no mandate of law to so do).
An Executive Order was never issued.
It was a policy change introduced by Homeland Security.
There is no Executive Order for DACA.
The same is true for the Justice Department grants that were halted to states with sanctuary cities where the district courts have ruled that these grants must continue.
Grants are not budgetary funding. Grants are discretionary, they are gifts. They can be given, and they can be stopped. These Justice Department grants to the states are to pay for state costs incurred in support of federal law enforcement.
If sanctuary states refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement, then they should not receive the funds granted to the states for those costs, since they are not being incurred. The courts are demanding that the Justice Department give these funds anyway, solely because they were given in the past.
The courts are compelling Justice Department spending, which is a huge overreach of power.
-PJ
It should be handled just as you’ve stated. The DACA EO is unconstitutional. To treat the EO otherwise is a travesty.
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.
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.
“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.