Posted on 12/16/2014 2:36:47 PM PST by Kaslin
Via WaPo, it’s now officially a mixed-blessings news day for Jeb Bush fans.
Two issues here. One: Does Obama enjoy more power to craft policy if Congress is deadlocked between the two parties? Ezra Klein says yes, I say no. Two: How far can Obama go in crafting policy in the name of “prosecutorial discretion”? No one disputes that he can prioritize one illegal immigrant’s deportation case over another’s. If he can do that for one person, why can’t he do it systematically for five million? At what point does “prosecutorial discretion” become unconstitutional legislation by presidential diktat?
Judge Arthur Schwab’s arguments will sound familiar, up to and including the hypothetical he offers on income tax rates. Skip to page 18 of the opinion for the section on constitutionality. Here’s the key bit on presidential power:
That last part could be key if this case drifts upward to SCOTUS and, as everyone expects, Boehner and McConnell cave on funding executive amnesty in the meantime. It’s correct, too: The point of separation of powers isn’t to protect each branch from the others, it’s to protect the citizen from government writ large by pitting the branches against each other instead of against the individual (in theory). The fact that Congress might acquiesce in Obama’s power grab on immigration thus shouldn’t spare O from judicial scrutiny since, after all, it’s the public that’s ultimately wronged by it — especially American workers — not Congress. If you want to argue a la Ezra that one branch’s power increases as another grows more impotent, I’d argue that the more executive power increases at the expense of the legislature, logically the more eager the judiciary should be to scrutinize the executive. That’s basic checks and balances — if Congress can’t check the executive, the courts should, something worth bearing in mind when standing inevitably becomes an issue in all this. Should a member of the public have standing to sue O for violating separation of powers even if he/she can’t show a concrete injury from O’s new policy? What would a robust checks-and-balances framework suggest?
As for the second issue, the point when “prosecutorial discretion” becomes legislation, Schwab’s ready for that too:
Is it true that “systematic” guidelines for implementing executive amnesty magically transform O’s action from prosecutorial discretion into unconstitutional legislation? Over at Reason, Ilya Somin says no; if the point of discretion is to let the executive prioritize among pending cases, why should we care if he issues guidelines to help immigration bureaucrats do that? Prioritizing without guidelines would itself lead to arbitrary, inconsistent policy. The flip side of that, though, is that there’s no obvious limiting principle to Obama’s “discretionary” power grabs so long as he’s acting to liberalize the law (a la suspending the employer mandate) rather than applying it, in Somin’s words, to “harass” people. In theory, Obama could refuse to enforce federal law altogether, a fine libertarian outcome but one most people would find inconsistent with his duty to faithfully execute the laws. The question is this: Whom would you rather see punish O for that, the courts or the voters? In theory, there’s already a check on the president in all this — voters can simply express their disgust by refusing to vote for him or his party’s successor next time around. But that means, without a judicial or legislative counter, we’ll have to endure this power grab for two more years with no remedy. Is that tolerable?
Assuming SCOTUS takes this case eventually, I think the discretion/legislation point will end up being decided along vague prudential lines — i.e. the president can use his discretion in individual cases and in classes of cases but not in lots of cases, whatever “lots” ends up meaning. Exit question: Does the GOP Senate’s takeover make it less likely that the Supreme Court will agree to hear this case? After all, it’s not really true that Congress “can’t check the executive,” as I said above. They can by impeaching him or by cutting off funding; if it turns out that Boehner and McConnell don’t have the votes for that, well, that’s just democracy in action. Obviously the public’s trending their way in replacing congressional Democrats with Republicans. Why should the Supremes step in and punish Obama when voters can do it in 2016?
bfl
and then at the White House it’s criminal behavior as usual
By the time this case reaches Scotus, there is no telling how many illegals will have social security numbers, work permits . . . and voter registrations. Raise your hand if you think Scotus will deny them their "privileges and immunities."
Unless legislative power is removed from the executive branch and returned to its rightful owners, the representatives of a sovereign people in congress, the next president will have extraordinary, extra-constitutional, tyrannical power established in precedent to do great damage to what remains of free government.
IOW, removal of the tyrant in 2016 will not remove the tyranny.
Article V is our only hope.
Just saw the story on TV. DOJ prosecutors are livid because neither side raised Zero’s illegal acts. The judge did this on his own. Court 1. Obama zero.
Wow
ping
“It allows Republicans to also show they are committed to ending Obama’s amnesty once and for all in the next Congress. If we agree it is indeed unconstitutional, we have no business funding it when the GOP controls Congress,” the Texas Republican said in a statement ahead of that vote. “The Constitution matters, and we must defend it. That is why we have fought so hard to ensure this vote.”
Cruz’s point of order failed 22-74, with about 20 Republicans joining with the Democrats to oppose it, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and Cruz’s fellow Texan, Republican Whip John Cornyn.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ripped Cruz’s maneuver as “irresponsible” in a statement late Saturday:
“While the president’s executive actions on immigration are reprehensible and deserve a strong response, I value the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution too much to exploit it for political expediency,” said Corker. “The Constitution gives Congress the power to fund the government so to assert that the House-passed spending bill is unconstitutional is not only inaccurate but irresponsible.”
“Why should the Supremes step in and punish Obama when voters can do it in 2016?”
America already sent the message. It is being ignored by the Elite.
Finally someone figured it out. It is now only a matter of time before THAT judge is overruled by a higher court.
Ah, the games that we play!
Hey, this judge says it is not Constitutional but the blackmailed and sissy GOP went along with it so as not to upset their moneybags donors or get their, uh, personal information plastered all over the news, so it must really be Ok, right?
The beautiful thing about this decision, like the constitution itself, is its simplicity and clarity.
You don’t need to be a member of the legal elect to understand it. My kids can understand it.
Obama decreed a law (several laws, in fact) and the President can’t do that. Game Over.
“That last part could be key if this case drifts upward to SCOTUS and, as everyone expects..”
This is what truly pisses me off! The words “drifts toward” is an apt description. These bastards haven’t done an honest day’s work for the entirety of my more than 74 years on this earth. The whole legal “system” is simply a diddle that does almost nothing and costs literally billions when you factor in the losses attributable to their interminable delays in decision making.They are perhaps the most shameful of the three branches of government.
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.