The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[mrjarrell]

Lots of precedent and not at all illegal for him to do what he's planning, even if loads of folks don't care for it. Including congress. We've been here before, lots of times. The kvetching is just louder now.

Executive action on immigration has a long legal precedent | MSNBC

 

[chipbennett]

I'm fine with referring to failing to execute duly passed laws as dereliction of duty.

And if he attempts to implement via EO what the Congress has debated and failed to enact legislation (such as the DREAM act), then I would consider it a usurpation of legislative authority, and grounds for impeachment.

 

[Trigger Time]

One day I hope that mother ****ing traitor goes to prison. I hope all the stupid ****s that voted for him fall and break their front teeth out

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No, he can't. And there is a huge difference.

Is it? I'm not sure it is all that different. Not acting on a law because of priorities or say one that is very old and just not really relevant any more is one thing but to intentionally not act or act against the will of the people strikes me as little different.

 

[rambone]

Not acting on a law because of priorities or say one that is very old and just not really relevant any more is one thing but to intentionally not act or act against the will of the people strikes me as little different.

If someone holds the "blind enforcement" point-of-view then he better be ready to stand by every archaic, tyrannical law on the books. Enforcing every law is mandatory, so it is claimed.

Dodging certain laws because they are "old" causes the argument to fall flat. The Executive obviously has the prerogative to de-prioritize certain laws.

 

[chipbennett]

If someone holds the "blind enforcement" point-of-view then he better be ready to stand by every archaic, tyrannical law on the books. Enforcing every law is mandatory, so it is claimed.

Dodging certain laws because they are "old" causes the argument to fall flat. The Executive obviously has the prerogative to de-prioritize certain laws.

The obvious retort is that there are simply too many laws on the books, which is a problem that encompasses both the legislative and executive branches. In any case, instead of merely failing to execute laws, the President can request the Congress to take up the matter of that legislation. If the Congress fails to do so, then that inaction is tacit indication that the legislative branch does not view the laws as archaic or not worthy of enforcement.

Stepping away from the theoretical: it is obvious that immigration laws are neither archaic nor a matter of some small importance. Thus, such arguments are moot. The societal and economic impact of illegal immigrants is very real, very timely, and very much at the forefront of domestic policy. Failure to execute immigration laws is gross dereliction of duty.

 

[rambone]

Do you think it would be a dereliction of duty to refuse to enforce the fines that are imposed on people who do not buy health insurance?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

If someone holds the "blind enforcement" point-of-view then he better be ready to stand by every archaic, tyrannical law on the books. Enforcing every law is mandatory, so it is claimed.

Dodging certain laws because they are "old" causes the argument to fall flat. The Executive obviously has the prerogative to de-prioritize certain laws.

And we the people have the right to hang/throw out of office/rebel against the [insert plural derogatory term here] when they deliberately ignore/deprioritize/crap on (your choice) duly passed laws that we think they shouldn't.

I mean hey, so if we take your logic to the extreme - then Kim Jong Obama can selectively enforce whatever he pleases?? At some point the people have the right/ability to counter punch back when they are being ignored. And Congress can defund/sue/impeach.

So at the end of the day - this whole conversation is a lovely exercise in Constitutional mental masturbation... sure - THEORETICALLY he's allowed to push that wagon AS FAR AS CONGRESS OR THE PEOPLE WILL LET HIM.

The real question is this: When Kim Jong Obama does stomp on the will of the people (as he has said he will...) What does Congress have the cojones to do about it. And what do we the people have the huevos to do about it? And what do you personally have the testicles to do about it? Those are the questions that matter. Whether he theoretically can try it is completely unimportant.

 

[88GT]

Obama is a hardcore statist, to be sure, but it is simply dumb call him an emperor for not enforcing immigration laws to the maximum degree.

This is the cover of Drudge right now.

They are not calling him an emperor for not enforcing immigration laws. They are calling him an emperor because he is acting like someone vested with all authority, not just a little bit of it. He does NOT, despite your claims, have the unfettered authority to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

I really hate to channel Kirk on this but that's the difference between rule of law and rule of man.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Do you think it would be a dereliction of duty to refuse to enforce the fines that are imposed on people who do not buy health insurance?

Yes, it is. It is single handedly deciding the law by yourself. It's wrong whether I like the law or I don't.

It also ignores that fact that he's the dirty SOB that pushed it through and signed it. The right thing to do is pressure the other branches to fix the problem correctly.

There's a difference between selective enforcement based on your whim and saying "these are the PRIORITY". Obviously at SOME level prioritization is needed. But there's a big difference between that and "I don't like it so I won't enforce it".

So - go on the record, Rambone - are you saying all of this just you would prefer an open border with Mexico? Or open borders period? I , for one, do think that we need to allow people in - but I believe that it needs to be done fairly and follow the law. That's not happened in a very long time.

 

[rambone]

And we the people have the right to hang/throw out of office/rebel against the [insert plural derogatory term here] when they deliberately ignore/deprioritize/crap on (your choice) duly passed laws that we think they shouldn't.

I mean hey, so if we take your logic to the extreme - then Kim Jong Obama can selectively enforce whatever he pleases?? At some point the people have the right/ability to counter punch back when they are being ignored. And Congress can defund/sue/impeach.

So at the end of the day - this whole conversation is a lovely exercise in Constitutional mental masturbation... sure - THEORETICALLY he's allowed to push that wagon AS FAR AS CONGRESS OR THE PEOPLE WILL LET HIM.

The real question is this: When Kim Jong Obama does stomp on the will of the people (as he has said he will...) What does Congress have the cojones to do about it. And what do we the people have the huevos to do about it? And what do you personally have the testicles to do about it? Those are the questions that matter. Whether he theoretically can try it is completely unimportant.

The reactions of Congress and the people are also essential checks and balances. We need them all. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.

They are not calling him an emperor for not enforcing immigration laws. They are calling him an emperor because he is acting like someone vested with all authority, not just a little bit of it. He does NOT, despite your claims, have the unfettered authority to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

I really hate to channel Kirk on this but that's the difference between rule of law and rule of man.

Is it your position that the executive branch has no role in stopping bad laws from affecting the people?

my position is that the executive branch does have a check and balance in the system. And that is fundamentally consistent with the rule of law.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

My point is - that the stated reason of the executive branch matters A LOT. The closer you get to one person insisting that it's their way or the highway - the more the extreme pressure placed on the people or Congress.

We all would agree that the cartridge box is the LAST RESORT of the people, correct? The extreme case where one person finally say "enough is enough" and takes out a Hitler-type. Yes , I guess that's the "final" check and balance... right?

What I'm suggesting is - that while arguably that is the last great pressure relief valve in the system, and is part of the design - it is stupid and dare I say "Emperor-ish" and childish to throw a temper tantrum and go that direction, that far...

[And before someone accuses me of violating forum rules - that is EXACTLY the scenario I'm arguing AGAINST] I just see this childish move by Kim Jung Obama as pushing us closer in that direction.

Bottom line Obama technically has the right to do it, but that DOESN'T make it the right thing to do. The closer we get to one person deciding everything , the more dangerous of ground we are on as a Republic. And I can't find it in my heart to celebrate when one man decides to impose his will over the voice of the people. Can you?

 

[88GT]

Is it your position that the executive branch has no role in stopping bad laws from affecting the people?

How would it do that?

my position is that the executive branch does have a check and balance in the system. And that is fundamentally consistent with the rule of law.

Yes, that check and balance is called the Judiciary and Congress. And when both of those duly pass and approve legislation, I see no where in any of our founding or ruling documents where POTUS has free rein to unilaterally disregard it.

 

[steveh_131]

I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition law, because I considered & now consider that law to be a nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image; and that it was as much my duty to arrest it’s execution in every stage, as it would have been to have rescued from the fiery furnace those who should have been cast into it for refusing to worship their image.

- Thomas Jefferson

As the Legislative, Executive & Judicial Departments of the U. S. are co-ordinate, and each equally bound to support the Constitution, it follows that each must in the exercise of its functions, be guided by the text of the Constitution according to its own interpretation of it; and consequently, that in the event of irreconcileable interpretations, the prevalence of the one or the other Departmt. must depend on the nature of the case, as receiving its final decision from the one or the other, and passing from that decision into effect, without involving the functions of any other.

- James Madison

The Supreme Court, then, is not the only interpreter of the Constitution. Each of the three coordinate branches of government created and empowered by the Constitution-the executive and legislative no less than the judicial-has a duty to interpret the Constitution in the performance of its official functions. In fact, every official takes an oath precisely to that effect.

- Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under Ronald Reagan

The very purpose of the Constitution is to limit the Federal Government. If any one branch feels that an action extends beyond those limits, I fully support them in refusing it.

 

[rambone]

Every executive pardon appears to be lawlessness, tyranny, dictatorship. Its a slap in the face of the people, congress, and the courts. Right?

Or maybe its the exact opposite of tyranny. It is a check in the system so that oppression cannot stand.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

steve - so what exactly do the immigration laws that Kim Jung Obama is single handedly not choosing to enforce, overreach in the Constitution? If defending our borders is not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution , frankly I'm not sure what the hell is....

That is one of the FEW things that specifically IS granted to the Federal Government. Necessarily so...

 

[88GT]

Is executive pardon a Constitutionally enumerated power? Then it's not really a problem. I don't have a problem with any branch following the Constitution. I do have a problem when the same power that you're championing lets them get away with violating the Constitution. Disregard of a law may not inherently be tyranny, but neither can you say that it never is.

 

[cwillour]

Maybe it is just me, but I seem to feel their is a distinction between choosing a direction for folks under his command (let's call this "prosecutorial discretion") and actions which bind or limit one's successor.

While I agree that the executive branch serves a critical role in the checks and balance process and feel that it is within his discretion to decide not to deport, I have not seen anything from you that would justify the issuance of work permits or otherwise allow such alterations of their visa status (which I see as being fundamentally different from offering an extension to a current visa.) Going further, his decision issue visas that would extend past his presidency, which is to say that he feels he has the right to extend his "prosecutorial discretion" to his successor (for at least a period.)

 

[mrjarrell]

So, it's the end of the world as we know it when Obama is choosing to selectively enforce regulations and laws that are under the auspices of the executive branch, but it was just honkey dorey when his predecessors (all the way back to Eisenhower) did the same thing? Seriously?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

mrj - wrong is wrong... no matter who its done by [bangs head on desk]

can you not see what 88 and cwillour are saying? That to exercise some level of discretion over how you manage and prioritize and enforce things is one thing. Using that as a cover your ass mechanism to not enforce something you do not like (or you wish to pander for politiical gain) is another? Especially to effectively write your own legislation by so doing?

This is where I finally get off the Ingotarian Wookie train - you guys are celebrating this as the President's "right" just because you like the outcome... that's pure iguana of the highest order. Can you not see that you are applauding a horribly statist move?

I can honestly say that I would celebrate NO President imposing his will by Executive Order like this unless the very survival of the Nation was at stake. And in this case, it's not. We have a petty bit tyrant imposing his will out of political expediancy. And that is NOTHING to celebrate.