Posted on 11/16/2014 1:52:46 PM PST by reaganaut1
IN the months since President Obama first seem poised — as he now seems poised again — to issue a sweeping executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, we’ve learned two important things about how this administration approaches its constitutional obligations.
First, we now have a clear sense of the legal arguments that will be used to justify the kind of move Obama himself previously described as a betrayal of our political order. They are, as expected, lawyerly in the worst sense, persuasive only if abstracted from any sense of precedent or proportion or political normality.
Second, we now have a clearer sense of just how anti-democratically this president may be willing to proceed.
The legal issues first. The White House’s case is straightforward: It has “prosecutorial discretion” in which illegal immigrants it deports, it has precedent-grounded power to protect particular groups from deportation, and it has statutory authority to grant work permits to those protected. Therefore, there can be no legal bar to applying discretion, granting protections and issuing work permits to roughly half the illegal-immigrant population.
This argument’s logic, at once consistent and deliberately obtuse, raises one obvious question: Why stop at half? (Activists are already asking.) After all, under this theory of what counts as faithfully executing the law, all that matters is that somebody, somewhere, is being deported; anyone and everyone else can be allowed to work and stay. So the president could “temporarily” legalize 99.9 percent of illegal immigrants and direct the Border Patrol to hand out work visas to every subsequent border crosser, so long as a few thousand aliens were deported for felonies every year.
The reality is there is no agreed-upon limit to the scope of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law because no president has attempted anything remotely like
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“prosecutorial discretion”
Oh?
Well seems to me that abuse of discretion is either a high crime or a misdemeanor.
All the people have to do on this issue is tell them the truth. Their taxes will go way up, the illegals won’t be paying any and get all the freebies they can’t have, resources will be used up, lands overpopulated quickly, their votes will never count again as the illegals gain majority rule quickly and only the people they choose will hold office, and the U.S will disentigrate and become an extension of Mexico and fall into the same state of affairs.
Comprende?
After blacks realize what happened to them, they’ll want to lynch Obama.
I am surprised that this is in the NY slimes. Since when are they critical of this president?
The consequences of not securing a country’s borders is a people will lose their country as we are now losing ours to an invasion of illegal immigrants. The consequences of not securing a country’s electoral processes to prevent voter fraud is the country will lose its Democracy to a Thugocracy as we are now losing ours to a Chicago mob run coup d’état.
Bankrupting our economy via Obamacare
Discharging top military officers
Shrinking the military
Destruction of defense/Destruction of economy/Destruction of sovereignty. A multi-pronged attack upon the United States.
It does not, under any currently recognized theory, permit the exclusion of broad classes of people. To do so is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, of all legal precedent in the Federal Case Law and Common Law, and in several parts of the US Code.
To permit entire classes of US Persons an exclusion from the law is an injustice and is exactly the reason that the Civil Rights of Act of 1964 was written.
It is a violation of the Presidential oath which requires that he faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, which explicitly requires of him a Constitutional Duty [to] "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
It is also a High Crime.
A clear, annotated essay on 0bama's abuses [not just immigration law] here: http://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/presidents-constitutional-duty-faithfully-execute-laws. Not only Congress and the Federal Courts, but every American should manfully oppose this President's every subsequent action if he takes this route. In particular, the government should be shut down until this unlawful order is rescinded.
Doez laws B racis’.
Here’s the problem. What’s the difference between weasily lawyering your way around the Constitution, or just openly defying it?
It is the very definition of the phrase.
Ross Douhat and David Brooks are their two in-house conservatives although Brooks thinks like a liberal.
“prosecutorial discretion”
Interesting concept. So we choose which federal crimes to prosecute and which ones to not prosecute.
How about this (from a future Republican president, after the Democrats in Congress fail to act):
THE IRS AND FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTED TO NOT PROSECUTE, OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION, AGAINST ANY AMERICAN WHO HAS PAID AT LEAST 20% OF HIS INCOME IN TAXES.
Goes both ways. What you see there just above is an EXECUTIVE FLAT TAX (of 20%).
Can ANYONE tell me how this differs from Obama’s Illegals plan?
Well, if I ever became president (chortle), that’s the kind of stuff I would do. No prosecutions over EPA violations, OSHA violations, minimum wage (or prevailing wage) irregulartiies, labor law. Oh, the fun I could have. THIS, Democrats, is what you are setting yourself up for.
“Oh, the fun I could have. THIS, Democrats, is what you are setting yourself up for.”
Great points!!! I was only able to come up with the flat tax...but yes, ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT will be allowed to pick-and-choose whatever federal laws he wants to ignore.
In SERIOUSNESS, that is our BEST DEFENSE in the courts against this stunt - all we have to do is illustrate how it completely DESTROYS the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative Branches. We need to fight this to the VERY END, or we will no longer be a country of laws.
Right - because millions of Blacks want minimum wage jobs as yard men and burger flippers and farm laborers.
The president in the execution of laws passed by Congress does not have ‘prosecutorial discretion.’ He is to faithfully execute the laws of the land.
Obviously, if anyone can pick and choose various aspects of any document to enforce, not enforce, half enforce, then that person really is writing the law and not faithfully executing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.