The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[cwillour]

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?

Not the "end of the world" so much as a(nother) step in the wrong direction. For me, it is less about the decision regarding enforcement and more about the decision to issue visas.

By the same token, I will be interested to see how he alters the job transfer process for H1b visa holders (a process which has been defined by congress, IIRC, and already allows freedom to move directly from one employer to another -- you are eligible to work at the new job as soon as your new employer submits a completed application and these visas are not subject to H1b caps.) By the same note, I am certain we will not be hearing of abuses of the redefined rules to qualify as an entrepreneur (they currently have to show that they are investing a certain amount of their own money, but apparently will not be able to quailify by claiming a certain amount of support from American investors.)

 

[mrjarrell]

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.

You guys keep ignoring the fact that what he's doing is not illegal. It's within the powers granted him as head of the executive. He will not be impeached. He will not be bothered in the least, as he is doing something that has already been addressed in the past by the courts, since the previous presidents have already been down this road when there has been a do nothing congress. He's no more a tyrant for doing this than Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush or the others.

 

[chipbennett]

You guys keep ignoring the fact that what he's doing is not illegal. It's within the powers granted him as head of the executive. He will not be impeached. He will not be bothered in the least, as he is doing something that has already been addressed in the past by the courts, since the previous presidents have already been down this road when there has been a do nothing congress. He's no more a tyrant for doing this than Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush or the others.

I must have overlooked the article in the constitution that enumerated the authority for the executive branch to legislate whenever it believes that legislative inaction constitutes a "do-nothing congress".

 

[mrjarrell]

The courts have already addressed prosecutorial discretion and that's within the powers of the executive, as we have seen in the past. It's Constitutional and covered.

Executive action on immigration has a long legal precedent | MSNBC

 

[Expat]

This view portrays the executive branch as having ZERO role in the checks and balances. It means that enforcers are obligated to ignore liberty, justice, and the rights of the people. They must ignore right and wrong. If the SCOTUS says it is OK to enslave people because of the color of their skin, the enforcers must do it.

That ignores the fact that the executive branch signed the bill into law.

 

[Denny347]

The courts have already addressed prosecutorial discretion and that's within the powers of the executive, as we have seen in the past. It's Constitutional and covered.

Executive action on immigration has a long legal precedent | MSNBC

Yeah, the talking heads are talking tough but they have little to back it up with.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

You guys keep ignoring the fact that what he's doing is not illegal. It's within the powers granted him as head of the executive. He will not be impeached. He will not be bothered in the least, as he is doing something that has already been addressed in the past by the courts, since the previous presidents have already been down this road when there has been a do nothing congress. He's no more a tyrant for doing this than Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush or the others.

And I must have missed when every President since Eisenhower took this much poetic license.

OK - I'll bite - show me when each of these Presidents overreached like this. When did they say "Congress has not acted therefore I will use Executive Orders to make it happen"? And what was on the line when they did it?

The REASON matters... It's one thing if we're under attack - it's another if it's pandering to your political base. In order to back up your claims - the context of the situation matters.

Again - it's not a matter of illegal - it's a matter of WRONG. Illegal is what you can get away with under the law. WRONG is what you _should_ avoid even if you might be able to get away with it.

We might disagree on whether Kim Jung Obama will get away with it. I firmly believe that it's the wrong thing to do. It's pushing the Republic NEEDLESSLY towards civil war and Anarchy. But then again - there are those around here that might root for that. I am not one of them.

EDIT - I just read the PMSNBC Democrat Party talking points.... Now I see where you get the "since Eisenhower" tripe.


How in the hell you can compare selectively enforcing immigration laws for 7000 Lithuanians who were fleeing the Iron Curtain , or even a ton of Cubans fleeing Castro - and allowing them to exceed quotas for humanitarian reasons - how you can possibly compare that with what is going on today with millions of people NOT coming here as political refugees - but as economic refugees, just in order to pander to a constituency requires an exercise in willfully planting one bodily orifice inside another.

I've got to go chill - my blood pressure's high enough as it is.

 

[BogWalker]

It's all fine and dandy when the president is shooting down laws you don't like, but the same ability to do that can be used to shoot down laws you do like.

 

[mrjarrell]

And I must have missed when every President since Eisenhower took this much poetic license.

OK - I'll bite - show me when each of these Presidents overreached like this. When did they say "Congress has not acted therefore I will use Executive Orders to make it happen"? And what was on the line when they did it?

The REASON matters... It's one thing if we're under attack - it's another if it's pandering to your political base. In order to back up your claims - the context of the situation matters.

Again - it's not a matter of illegal - it's a matter of WRONG. Illegal is what you can get away with under the law. WRONG is what you _should_ avoid even if you might be able to get away with it.

We might disagree on whether Kim Jung Obama will get away with it. I firmly believe that it's the wrong thing to do. It's pushing the Republic NEEDLESSLY towards civil war and Anarchy. But then again - there are those around here that might root for that. I am not one of them.

Read the article I posted and you'll see when those presidents "over reached". They've all done it and there was no great hue an cry when they did it. Now we have one going on and I am pretty sure it all boils down to ...."But....OBAMA!" more than anything else. No-one here is going to excoriate the blessed saint Ronny or his archangel Bush the First for doing what Obama is doing. You may think it's wrong, but there are probably just as many Americans who think it's right. That's very subjective. It will not lead us to Anarchy, (quite the opposite, indeed) or civil war, (unless you are foolish enough to start one. Feel free to start without the rest of us). Like it or not, what he's doing is legal and Constitutional and within the powers of his office. I may not like the man, but I'm not going to scream about him doing something legal.

EDIT: I see you did read it and reedited. The facts are what they are. Like it or not.

 

[88GT]

Read the article I posted and you'll see when those presidents "over reached". They've all done it and there was no great hue an cry when they did it. Now we have one going on and I am pretty sure it all boils down to ...."But....OBAMA!" more than anything else. No-one here is going to excoriate the blessed saint Ronny or his archangel Bush the First for doing what Obama is doing. You may think it's wrong, but there are probably just as many Americans who think it's right. That's very subjective. It will not lead us to Anarchy, (quite the opposite, indeed) or civil war, (unless you are foolish enough to start one. Feel free to start without the rest of us). Like it or not, what he's doing is legal and Constitutional and within the powers of his office. I may not like the man, but I'm not going to scream about him doing something legal.

EDIT: I see you did read it and reedited. The facts are what they are. Like it or not.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yeah, the talking heads are talking tough but they have little to back it up with.

Well, other than Article II, §3, there is very little to back it up.

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

Yes, let's not do something so un-INGO as to bother to uphold the rule of law. We have lynch parties to form. Maybe post some photos of judges being hit with clubs, that's more our speed.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

EDIT: I see you did read it and reedited. The facts are what they are. Like it or not.

All good sir, I see we get to agree to disagree .

You (and PMSNBC) say that upping a quota by Executive Order so that 7000 people can flee communism and survive is the moral equivalent of letting 15 million economic refugees in for political expediency. I contend that while they legally used a similar mechanism (aside of the H1B issue that cwillour noted above) they are morally as different as night and day.

 

[Expat]

No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order

Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama's Amnesty Order - The Atlantic

 

[mrjarrell]

The reforms will focus primarily on protecting undocumented parents of US citizens and legal residents, as well as undocumented individuals who have been in the country for many years. In tandem with extending temporary legal status to millions, Obama will also focus on reinforcing border security, and increasing deportations of individuals with criminal records.
Lacking the authority to single handedly pass comprehensive reform, Obama will likely grant reprieves to the estimated 4.1 million undocumented parents of American citizens and legal permanent residents who have been in the country for more than five years and who have no criminal records.

Obama is also expected to annul the age limit for those who qualify for the existing DREAMers program, which currently only covers individuals between the ages of 15 and 30 who entered the US before they turned 16. This change is expected to provide an additional 1 million people with protection from deportation.
Obama is also expected to announce an expansion of visa programs for highly skilled workers and foreign entrepreneurs.

And it's done. He gave his speech and the world's still here.

[video=youtube_share;aAst5BHtDpA]http://youtu.be/aAst5BHtDpA?t=57m59s[/video]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

the world's still here.

Yes, that's the problem isn't it. The world is here and they won't leave.

This is about property rights. Where are the lapel grabbing INGOtarians spouting off about property rights? Strangely supportive of violations thereof. Well, not strangely.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, that's the problem isn't it. The world is here and they won't leave.

This is about property rights. Where are the lapel grabbing INGOtarians spouting off about property rights? Strangely supportive of violations thereof. Well, not strangely.

This is about another tenet.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm going to remember how hip and cool it is not to enforce laws in the next INGO Raptor Pack thread about an obvious case of excessive force by a law enforcement officer.

Bet all this happy horses**t in this thread goes right out the window.

This is about another tenet.

I know, INGOtarians don't support the property rights of others, just themselves.

 

[Denny347]

Well, other than Article II, §3, there is very little to back it up.



Yes, let's not do something so un-INGO as to bother to uphold the rule of law. We have lynch parties to form. Maybe post some photos of judges being hit with clubs, that's more our speed.

So we would be in agreement that he would be clearly in violation of this if he directed the ATF to ignore tenants of the 35FA? If so, then good, we must not be hypocritical. If no other President in the past has used an EO to ignore parts of an existing law then we are on the right track ( I do not know if they have or not).
Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

 

[Trigger Time]

So we would be in agreement that he would be clearly in violation of this if he directed the ATF to ignore tenants of the 35FA? If so, then good, we must not be hypocritical. If no other President in the past has used an EO to ignore parts of an existing law then we are on the right track ( I do not know if they have or not).
Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

And there you have it!!!
Lets just all please preasure our representation in congress to impeach and remove this **** from office sooner than later! we can do it!! Hell enough democRATS nights even jump on board if they think it will save their sorry asses.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The Left can wax poetic about the "social contract," but if a President can pick & choose which laws he'll abide by, so can the rest of us.