Posted on 11/22/2014 2:05:11 PM PST by aimhigh
There are no serious legal questions about the administration’s plan, which will temporarily legalize the status of some 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. Even lawyers for the conservative Federalist Society concede Obama’s legal reasoning. The serious questions revolve around political norms. And conservative critics have a point that Obama is stretching norms of political behavior by enacting effective changes in the law solely on his own.
Immigration law, unlike other kinds of law, is explicitly designed by Congress to delegate authority to the president. "The Immigration and Nationality Act and other laws are chock-full of huge grants of statutory authority to the president,” notes Republican lawyer Margaret Stock.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
It's working so far. Not much fact checking is going on.
/johnny
They're the new go-to guys for liberals?
”… Immigration law, unlike other kinds of law, is explicitly designed by Congress to delegate authority to the president."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
With all due respect to mom & pop, since generations of parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, institutionally indoctrinated constitutional “experts" unsurprisingly don’t understand that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.
More specifically, after doing some scratching, regardless that PC interpretations of the Constitution’s Uniform Rule of Naturalization clause, Clause 4 of Section 8 of Article I, now wrongly blurr distinctions between immigration and naturalization, please consider the following.
Not only did Thomas Jefferson write that the states have never delegated to feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, immigration a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue, but James Madison, regarded as the Father of the Constitution, had essentially written the same thing.
As mentioned in related threads, here again is the relevant exerpt from Jefferson’s writing.
“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
So while the idea that Obama cannot pardon illegal immigrants without the legislative support of Congress is at least conceptually correct, it must be noted that Congress still cannot legislatively address any aspect of intrastate immigration without the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V 3/4 state majority via an immigration amendment to the Constitution imo.
H O W E V E R …
I expect the powers to be to continue to emphasize the PC interpretations of various constitutional clauses to justify federal immigration policy because it remains that the 10th Amendment is probably the best kept secret in DC.
The bottom line is that constitutionally ignorant citizens deserve unconstitutionally big federal government imo.
This seems more dangerous than an EO. He just says what the law is and everybody follows it. Very tribal.
If this was legal, then anything is legal.
The headline is premature.
We have not even seen any EOs yet.
This could be another Kenyan Klown head fake.
If not, it is still illegal, as the cessation of deportation is illegal.
The Kenyan Klown is going to own this debacle, not the GOP.
Islamocommie did an executive “action” in this maneuver and will set his agencies DHS & crew to operate administrative “executive orders” to give the same effect. Not much we can do except defund and use this as a way to block REFORM .
/johnny
This is my point. Like the ACA (which actually is a law), the more time that passes with the perception being that an amnesty exists, the harder it will be to reverse its effects.
/johnny
/johnny
Yes, preceded by a stampede of additional illegal aliens over the border providing more leverage to stampede congressional action.
/johnny
johnny, you were the first to ask to see the EOs, and not go crazy until we did.
How do we know what he signed?
But we do have to put the pressure on our reps that this is unacceptable and we expect them to hold Obama accountable.
When the pressure is too great, politicians’ survival instincts kick in.
There needs to be a political convention, to found a new party, whose principles should be broadly those of the old Republican Party, though purged of anti-Constitutional accretions.
The effort should begin with a public invitation to all Republicans currently holding office. They should be invited to attend the new party’s convention, provided they have not been involved in any corrupt financial deals with business interests or activist groups, and are certain that no one has any photographs of them in illicit sexual congress with any boys, girls, men, or women.
Let those Republicans who refuse to attend the convention on those terms explain why.
Yes, much more of a stampede. What he has said will be propagandized in Latin America by his fellow travelers there and received by a truly low-info audience who wouldn’t be able to sort out that deliberate misinformation even if it occurred to them to try.
The memos that he signed are public.
Pressure does need to be put where appropriate. The House has not passed the immigration laws that the President wants. They have not gone to Reconciliation with the Senate to match their bill.
Now is the time for some creative in-action to run the clock out on this congress and get to the next.
/johnny
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.