Well, kinda kingly, but hardly new.
It is codified in the immigration laws that he has the right to do this. Congress relinquished control over this issue to the executive branch back in 2006 under the bush administration. It is contained in the measure "U.S. Code § 1227". (Great explanation there) This is exactly the same provision that Bush used to grant amnesty. Obama is doing exactly the same thing, only on a bigger scale.
(, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:04, Reply)
Don't come round here with your 'laws' and your 'logic'.
(
Ghoti Fingers, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:09,
Reply)
Wow, that is off kilter and wrong
I would suggest you consult with a constitutional lawyer, like President Obama, as to how much power he has. Again, he has sworn to "faithfully execute the laws" that are passed, not create programs. If Congress doesn't act it does not grant authority, no matter how bad he wants it.
Here is Obama answering the question whether he has the power: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBTSQh27oTU
(
gunmetal drove slowly in the passing lane on, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:13,
Reply)
Well, now he's being sued I think the courts will decide
But I suspect his argument is that he is not 'changing the law' he is 'following the law'. He is exercising powers that have been granted to him by Congress.
You might think that's incorrect, but it will be for the Suprem Court to decide. I suspect they might side with him, especially considering, you know, the law and all that.
(
Ghoti Fingers, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:22,
Reply)
That is the problem with the government now: crap legislating and punt the hard decisions to the courts
It really isn't for the courts to decide: the enumeration of powers is clear. The courts should be the last resort. And I'm ashamed at democrats who have surrendered their powers given under the constitution to the executive. There were repubs that went against Nixon and dems that went against Clinton because the House and Senate used to not be rubber stamps of the executive, but worked for voters.
(
gunmetal drove slowly in the passing lane on, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:27,
Reply)
As an outsider, I think the law is pretty clear
Read to the end of US Code 1227;
"Nothing in this subsection may be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to grant a stay of removal or deportation in any case not described in this subsection."
To me this means
"Any deportation process which is not already stayed may be stayed on the order of the Secretary of Homeland Security or of the Attorney General"
You may read the law differently, and that's what the court is there for. The law is not badly formed, it might just be open to interpretation.
And with that, I'm off to bed.
(
Ghoti Fingers, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:35,
Reply)
You're confusing laws and government programs.
Yes, he must "faithfully execute the laws" and he is free to create programs within the confines of those laws. The fact is, as shown in '8 U.S.C. § 1227', is that he has that power. You may not like it, but that's the law and it is his prerogative.
The video from Fox News you posted is great, and it shows Obama's' cynicism. But he appeared to me at least, to be making (cynical) political statements about what is politically impossible not what is legally possible. He's had this right from day 1 because Bush (and the then Republican congress) created it. Largely because it is useful in terrorism cases which is a much more concerning abuse than this.
I'm no Obama-bot. I think he's been a disaster for the American left in particular but this 'King Obama, Chairman Obama, Générale Obama' nonsense is harmful.
(, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 23:57, Reply)
I'm not confusing law and government programs.
Remember, no law is made by the executive. Bush had an overwhelming majority of both democrats and republicans to go to war, to address terrorism. Yes, the dems later said they didn't mean it during the following elections to appeal to the anti-war base (where have they gone? Silenced.) And just because one president issues an executive order does not grant power to, or limit subsequent presidents. Creating programs must be done on pursuant to a statutory grant, followed by exhaustive comment periods so that affected parties may influence the way an agency creates and enforces regulation. This is done for due process.
My real gripe? Is that he knows he doesn't have the power to do this, but just wanted to poke the repubs in the eye after the last election where he had his ass handed to him. I speak Spanish, so I do pro bono work with lots of migrant workers who believe he has saved them. The reality is the courts will likely overturn it, and if not, he has no funding to do the things he proposed. It will be like the myriad of other campaign promises he made, believing that good intentions, not reality are all that matters. Much like his "pre-emptive" Nobel Peace prize, it is all based on what he said he would do, not what he did. But to some, they are satisfied saying "well, at least he wanted to, but thoses other guys hate gays, women and the environment."
(
gunmetal drove slowly in the passing lane on, Thu 4 Dec 2014, 0:57,
Reply)
Well now you're just mixing your personal politics with the law
"Remember, no law is made by the executive", well of course it isn't, that's my whole point, the law was passed in the congress in 2006 that granted the executive the right to create such programs."And just because one president issues an executive order does not grant power to, or limit subsequent presidents". This is a misreading. The limitations of 'executive decisions' are set by the congress and apply to the office of the executive and not to the individual who is currently in office. Legally Obama has exactly the same right as Bush to do this. These powers pass through presidents. "Creating programs must be done on pursuant to a statutory grant, followed by..", Yes, and that happened under the Bush administration back in 2006. The legal groundwork was laid back then and Obama is simply utilizing it.
Now to the politics. "well, at least he wanted to, but thoses other guys hate gays, women and the environment." Well I agree with that political sentiment in many ways. It's that cringe worthy, all too common liberal sentiment that says "Well yes, he has bombed 8 countries in 6 years and they've all been majority Muslim, but he has been pretty good on gay rights!". So I agree with that part of what you say. But that's not the issue here. If we are talking about legal issues then lets stick to that.
(, Thu 4 Dec 2014, 2:18, Reply)
