The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[mrjarrell]

People keep stating that this action by Obama "ignores the will of the people". As I have said before, poll after poll, for years now, has shown that a majority of the US population are in favour of immigration reform and want something done. That is the will of the people. This last election was pathetic and not indicative of any form of mandate. We had the lowest voter turnout in many decades. Obama, by refusing to enforce these deportations and instruct his executive branch agencies to see about reclassifying peoples status, was doing what the American people have wanted for years.

 

[printcraft]

People keep stating that this action by Obama "ignores the will of the people". As I have said before, poll after poll, for years now, has shown that a majority of the US population are in favour of immigration reform and want something done. That is the will of the people. This last election was pathetic and not indicative of any form of mandate. We had the lowest voter turnout in many decades. Obama, by refusing to enforce these deportations and instruct his executive branch agencies to see about reclassifying peoples status, was doing what the American people have wanted for years.

What "exactly" do these polls say?

I'm betting the part you are leaving out is the majority of American in these polls answer "YES" to wanting the border SECURED & CLOSED to illegals.

This is an important fact that is being glossed over.

When you harped on Reagan "say it ain't so" the promise was at that time, to SECURE the border in exchange for reform........... liberal policies since that time have not let that happen.
There is STILL opposition to securing the border. Why?
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's 30 years ago.......... we had immigration reform...... Do you honestly think the "will of the people" is being handled here?

 

[Notavictim646]

People keep stating that this action by Obama "ignores the will of the people". As I have said before, poll after poll, for years now, has shown that a majority of the US population are in favour of immigration reform and want something done. That is the will of the people. This last election was pathetic and not indicative of any form of mandate. We had the lowest voter turnout in many decades. Obama, by refusing to enforce these deportations and instruct his executive branch agencies to see about reclassifying peoples status, was doing what the American people have wanted for years.

Or this:


Majority in U.S. Want GOP in Congress to Set Nation's Course

 

[mrjarrell]

And the majority in that same poll say that it won't make a difference with the republicans in power.

 

[Twangbanger]

People keep stating that this action by Obama "ignores the will of the people". As I have said before, poll after poll, for years now, has shown that a majority of the US population are in favour of immigration reform and want something done. That is the will of the people. This last election was pathetic and not indicative of any form of mandate. We had the lowest voter turnout in many decades. Obama, by refusing to enforce these deportations and instruct his executive branch agencies to see about reclassifying peoples status, was doing what the American people have wanted for years.

This is intellectually lazy. Polling presents all kinds of situations where the public says they "want something done" on an issue, when presented in general terms...but as soon as you start presenting them with specifics, they bail. Or the consensus breaks down into a cacophony of The People not being able to agree on what the "what" should be. When someone in power actually "does something," the voters often run the other way and lead a backlash against it. Why did B.O. wait until after the elections before taking action on immigration? Because he knows that the "something" the voters want is composed of many different components, some conflicting in spirit, none of which everybody can agree on. And, the specific part he intends to act upon is unpopular and bound to get his party a drubbing at the polls. He's not addressing the will of the public in any essential fashion; he's simply plucking out the part of the agenda _he_ agrees with, implementing that, and leaving the rest on the vine. That selectivity may result in the football moving forward in some fashion, but should not be misconstrued as the act of an Agent of The People doing their bidding.

And while we're talking about the voting polls, this canard that low turnout undermines the mandate given by the voters, is an idea only pushed by the ideological losers in any given contest. If this recent election had thrown the Republicans out of power at the same level of turnout, MrJ. would likely be on here crowing about how it serves the Repukelicans right, and the Democrats would be in a headlong rush to pass Cap & Trade, (real) Immigration Amnesty, and an Assault Weapon Ban - all with nary a suggestion of electoral illegitimacy from the Left. Elections are decided by people who give a *****. If the people on "your" side of the spectrum didn't give a ***** about what was being contested, they've expressed that opinion by voting with their feet and staying home.

 

[sb0]

And the majority in that same poll say that it won't make a difference with the republicans in power.

Talk about moving the goalposts.

 

[bingley]

People keep stating that this action by Obama "ignores the will of the people of INGO".

Fixed it for you!

 

[rambone]

Failing to enforce laws, or parts of laws, is a soft form of Tyranny that will continue as long as the voting public support it.

If the New York governor stopped arresting people for inserting more than 7 rounds in their mags, would you call him a tyrant?

 

[bingley]

If the New York governor stopped arresting people for inserting more than 7 rounds in their mags, would you call him a tyrant?

Absolutely not! It's only when the president refuses to enforce the laws I want him to enforce, that I feel it's important for the president to enforce all laws. However, when there are some clearly bad laws, it's OK for the executive branch not to enforce them.

 

[cobber]

This is intellectually lazy. ...

And while we're talking about the voting polls, this canard that low turnout undermines the mandate given by the voters, is an idea only pushed by the ideological losers in any given contest. If this recent election had thrown the Republicans out of power at the same level of turnout, MrJ. would likely be on here crowing about how it serves the Repukelicans right, and the Democrats would be in a headlong rush to pass Cap & Trade, (real) Immigration Amnesty, and an Assault Weapon Ban - all with nary a suggestion of electoral illegitimacy from the Left. Elections are decided by people who give a *****. If the people on "your" side of the spectrum didn't give a ***** about what was being contested, they've expressed that opinion by voting with their feet and staying home.

Yes. If you remove yourself from the pool of voters, your opinion should not and cannot have any bearing on the government. Voting LP or CPUSA at least is akin to voting 'present' (as in 'I actually pay attention and give a damn'). And if a significant % of voters did vote LP or CPUSA or whatever, then we could talk about disaffection among the "voters". But if people don't vote now, why do we think they would ever vote?

And if they're really disaffected, they couldstop paying taxes (or start refusing the EIC or refunds they're getting...).

If the New York governor stopped arresting people for inserting more than 7 rounds in their mags, would you call him a tyrant?

If you believe the SAFE Act was lawfully-enacted by the Legislature, and is not unconstitutional. Yes. But that's apples and pomegranates.

 

[rambone]

If you believe the SAFE Act was lawfully-enacted by the Legislature, and is not unconstitutional. Yes.

That's an interesting way you measure tyranny.

A lot of people call it tyranny when the majority foists its oppressive will on the minority. Democracy! Two wolves and a sheep, voting on dinner.

A law could be completely constitutional and also completely oppressive and evil. It is not OK to oppress people just because the law permits it. A person ought to have some principles to guide him, beyond "just following orders."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Update:

So much for the prerogative stuff.

District court declares Obama immigration action unconstitutional - The Washington Post

 

[TaunTaun]

How can it be unconstitutional? Did he actually sign any executive order?

 

[T.Lex]

This came up in the Nuclear Iran thread, so thought I'd bump the thread and add this.

Apparently, we are relaxing sanctions on Iran, and looking to increase them against Venezuela.
BBC News - Seven Venezuelan officials targeted by US

The US has targeted at least seven Venezuelan officials with sanctions for alleged human rights violations.
Those named, including the head of police, will have assets frozen and be blocked from doing business with American firms or travelling to the US.
The White House said in a statement it was "deeply concerned" by the Venezuelan government's efforts to intimidate political opponents.

We are "deeply concerned" about Venezuela's efforts to intimidate internal political opponents, but WAY less concerned about Iranian hostility to its neighbors. Or our allies. Like Israel.

For now.

If only we had a rational, comprehensive foreign policy....

 

[rambone]

This came up in the Nuclear Iran thread, so thought I'd bump the thread and add this.

Apparently, we are relaxing sanctions on Iran, and looking to increase them against Venezuela.
BBC News - Seven Venezuelan officials targeted by US



We are "deeply concerned" about Venezuela's efforts to intimidate internal political opponents, but WAY less concerned about Iranian hostility to its neighbors. Or our allies. Like Israel.

For now.

If only we had a rational, comprehensive foreign policy....

Not that this is uninteresting or unimportant, but what is its relevance to this thread?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I think perhaps it has something to do with the executive branch deciding what it will and will not enforce. Sounds like T. Lex is making a point that the current administration seems to be a bit irrational in it's use of prerogative?

Just a guess...

 

[buckwacker]

Refusing to enforce a law is much different than governmental assistance in breaking the law. This administration has not only refused to enforce immigration law, but are proposing giving law breakers a government sanctioned pass and assistance while doing so.

 

[oldpink]

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In short, it's not up to one man whether a given law is "unjust."
That decision belongs in the hands of the judiciary or the legislative branch.
If the head of the executive branch doesn't like a given law, then he may request a change or repeal, which can only be executed by the legislative branch.
To just pick and choose what you will enforce and refuse to enforce based entirely on one man's preferences is the behavior of a dictator, not a president.
PERIOD

 

[T.Lex]

Not that this is uninteresting or unimportant, but what is its relevance to this thread?

Fair question.

Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution - and really, Article 2, Section 1, which includes all executive powers - the president has the authority to negotiate foreign treaties. That has always been understood to include the over-arching ability to engage in foreign policy.

See:
Jus tractatuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congress is, by design, composed of factions. A group like that is structurally incapable of managing foreign policy.

So, the executive of a gov't is afforded the ability to deal with the international community.

In the context of this thread, foreign policy is an area where the executive has a near-absolute prerogative to do what he pleases. The current administration's treatment of Venezuela, although within his prerogative, is an example (IMHO) of the lack of guiding principles.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Fair question.

Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution - and really, Article 2, Section 1, which includes all executive powers - the president has the authority to negotiate foreign treaties. That has always been understood to include the over-arching ability to engage in foreign policy.

See:
Jus tractatuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congress is, by design, composed of factions. A group like that is structurally incapable of managing foreign policy.

So, the executive of a gov't is afforded the ability to deal with the international community.

In the context of this thread, foreign policy is an area where the executive has a near-absolute prerogative to do what he pleases. The current administration's treatment of Venezuela, although within his prerogative, is an example (IMHO) of the lack of guiding principles.

And yet, the Constitution also gives the Senate a check on the negotiating authority of the Chief Executive through its requirement to "advise and consent" to treaties with other nations, and the House has the authority to block spending on the Chief Executive's projects as well.