Administrative Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is a Blatant Usurpation of Congress's Const

[Stephanie]

CALL YOUR REPESENTIVES FOLKS. and any Republicans CALL the Presidential candidates that are running.

SNIP:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) responded sharply to today's White House announcement that it will essentially halt enforcement against illegal aliens who have not been convicted of criminal offenses. Today's move by the Obama administration amounts to an administrative amnesty and a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration policy without approval by Congress, charged FAIR. The announcement was posted on the White House website.

Under the guise of setting priorities for immigration enforcement, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz lays out entire classes of illegal aliens who will no longer be subject to enforcement. The plan entails dropping existing cases and taking "steps to keep low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline in the first place," Munoz writes.

"Today's policy announcement clearly demonstrates the Obama administration's defiance of both the constitutional separation of powers and the will of the American public in its relentless effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "From the outset, the administration has refused to enforce many immigration laws, essentially placing its own political agenda ahead of its constitutional responsibilities to carry out laws enacted by Congress. It has also acted aggressively to prevent state governments from implementing laws aimed at discouraging illegal immigration, including filing lawsuits against Arizona and Alabama.

"Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public," Stein noted. "Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress's constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens."

The announcement seemingly comes in response to growing demands from illegal alien advocates that the administration exercise broad discretionary powers not to enforce laws against entire classes of people who are in the country illegally. "In spite of repeated statements from President Obama himself that he lacks the constitutional authority to implement an amnesty by executive fiat, the administration is now doing precisely that," said Stein.

"This step by the White House amounts to a complete abrogation of the President's duty to enforce the laws of the land and a huge breach of the public trust. Never, in the history of federal immigration enforcement, has an administration willfully and so egregiously usurped Congress's and the people's role to decide immigration issues. In essence, the administration has declared that U.S. immigration is now virtually unlimited to anyone willing to try to enter – and only those who commit violent felonies after arrival are subject to enforcement. This is not the nation's immigration law," concluded Stein.

the rest at..
Administrative Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is a Blatant Usurpation of Congress's Constitutional Authority,... -- WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

 

[Kuros]

Its called prosecutorial discretion. Law enforcement agencies and local and state counsel make these kinds of decisions all the time.

These requests and the subsequent ICE memorandum should come as no surprise. Like all government officials, from the local traffic cop to the Attorney General of the United States, immigration officials must make decisions every day about how they exercise their power. It is within their discretion to determine whom to target for removal. For instance, by prioritizing “criminal aliens” over “non-criminal aliens,” DHS exercises its authority to enforce the law against some people but not others. These decisions are exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

For those unfamiliar with the idea of prosecutorial discretion—or with the way immigration laws are actually enforced—it can be confusing to identify and understand what is at stake when advocates couch their demands in terms of prosecutorial discretion. Consequently, the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Council has produced the following brief introduction to the concept of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.

Obama wants immigration enforcement to focus on finding and deporting criminal aliens. His decision is completely understandable. Congress can, of course, foreclose such discretion with specific legislation countermanding it.

 

[Angelhair]

Well, in that case that would be EVERY illegal who crossed into this country illegally. Geez, what a concept. When you cross into a country without the permission of that country, you have already committed a crime - even if considered a 'minor' offense. The man is looking for votes but he will be surprised to find that most of the latinos who vote are against the illegal entry!

 

[CryingKoala]

Congress has no power over the policies of The Citizenship and Immigration Service or ICE other than what it can do to revise the Immigration and Naturalization Act or set its budget.

Immigration policy is a purely Executive role governed by administrative law. Congress has no say in how it is run.

Btw The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is run by neo-nazis who are against all immigration Their credibility is zero.
The Maddow Blog - Racist roots of Arizona's immigration law
FAIR Embraces Racist Founder | Hatewatch | Southern Poverty Law Center

 

[Angelhair]

Congress has no power over the policies of The Citizenship and Immigration Service or ICE other than what it can do to revise the Immigration and Naturalization Act or set its budget.

Immigration policy is a purely Executive role governed by administrative law. Congress has no say in how it is run.

Btw The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is run by neo-nazis who are against all immigration Their credibility is zero.
The Maddow Blog - Racist roots of Arizona's immigration law
FAIR Embraces Racist Founder | Hatewatch | Southern Poverty Law Center

A tragedy to say the least. When we have a fool in the highest office, that can be very, very dangerous. And it seems as if we have.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why is he doing this rather then going through Congress?

Easy.

Congress won't pass an amnesty bill so he's going around them.

This is Obama trying to pull the Hispanic vote to his side similar to the black vote. If he gets both he won't need to work so hard getting independents.

Anyone who tries to stop him will be labeled a racist.

Perfect.

 

[mudwhistle]

Note to Hispanics: This means Obama has shelved Amnesty permanently.

 

[CryingKoala]

Why is he doing this rather then going through Congress?

Easy.

Congress won't pass an amnesty bill so he's going around them.

This is Obama trying to pull the Hispanic vote to his side similar to the black vote. If he gets both he won't need to work so hard getting independents.

Anyone who tries to stop him will be labeled a racist.

Perfect.

It is part and parcel with his efforts to give the appearance of action, while really sitting on his ass.

Latinos aren't the only solid Democrat constituency he has screwed over like this.

 

[PattGarrett]

Obama thinks that he is above the law on everything, take for example his threats to invoke the 14th amendment over the debt (crisis). No where in the 14th amendment does it say or even imply that the executive branch has authority to enforce any part of the amendment. You would think that a constitutional scholar such as Obama would know this.

In fact section 5 of amendment 14 states:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Now congress has voted down the Dream Act so Obama is taking it upon himself to circumvent the rule of law by issuing an executive order, which is an usurpation of the legislative powers of congress, to allow amnesty as Obama see's fit.

The Executive Branch was never intended to have the power to usurp congress, and Obama's attempt to do so is grounds for impeachment.Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." When the Constitution was proposed, those opposed to a strong central government, the anti-Federalists, argued that there was no Bill of Rights to protect the people and that a centralized government would become too powerful, usurping the rights of the individual States.

The greatest fear the founders of this nation had was the establishment of a strong central government and a strong political leader at the center of that government. They no longer wanted kings, potentates or czars, they wanted a loose association of States in which the power emanated from the States and not from the central government.

Many of the fears of the founding fathers may now be coming to fruition. Today, the executive branch of the government is immensely powerful, much more powerful than the founding fathers had envisioned or wanted. Congressional legislative powers have been usurped. There is no greater example of that usurpation than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The Executive Order governs everything from the Flag Code of the United States to the ability to single-handedly declare Martial Law. Presidents have used the Executive Order in times of emergencies to override the Constitution of the United States and the Congress.

A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.

A series of Executive Orders, internal governmental departmental laws, unpassed by Congress, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, has whittled down Constitutional law substantially. These new Executive Orders and Congressional Acts allow for the construction of concentration camps, suspension of rights and the ability of the President to declare Martial Law in the event of a drug crisis. Congress will have no power to prevent the Martial Law declaration and can only review the process six months after Martial Law has been declared. The most critical Executive Order was issued on August 1, 1971. Nixon signed both a proclamation and Executive Order 11615. Proclamation No. 4074 states, "I hereby declare a national emergency", thus establishing an economic crisis. That national emergency order has not been rescinded.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry.

When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.

The only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it. Judging by the character of our current president the possibility of a "crisis" that could be used to impliment any of the items of these executive orders is a very real possibility. He has repeatedly shown his distain for the rule of law and the power of congress.

This criminal act that is being perpetrated upon the citizenry of this nation by our own president must be stopped immediately. Our president is no president, he is well on his way to becoming a dictator and I am really worried that he may enact some or all of these executive orders in an attempt to stay in "power" once he is voted out.

 

[PattGarrett]

Angelhair, we don't have a fool in office, we have a very dangerous Anti-American that is hell bent on collecting all powers under the executive branch in an attempt to "fundamentally transform" America into a dictator state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Administrative Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is a Blatant Usurpation of Congress's Const

CALL YOUR REPESENTIVES FOLKS. and any Republicans CALL the Presidential candidates that are running.

SNIP:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) responded sharply to today's White House announcement that it will essentially halt enforcement against illegal aliens who have not been convicted of criminal offenses. Today's move by the Obama administration amounts to an administrative amnesty and a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration policy without approval by Congress, charged FAIR. The announcement was posted on the White House website.

Under the guise of setting priorities for immigration enforcement, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz lays out entire classes of illegal aliens who will no longer be subject to enforcement. The plan entails dropping existing cases and taking "steps to keep low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline in the first place," Munoz writes.

"Today's policy announcement clearly demonstrates the Obama administration's defiance of both the constitutional separation of powers and the will of the American public in its relentless effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "From the outset, the administration has refused to enforce many immigration laws, essentially placing its own political agenda ahead of its constitutional responsibilities to carry out laws enacted by Congress. It has also acted aggressively to prevent state governments from implementing laws aimed at discouraging illegal immigration, including filing lawsuits against Arizona and Alabama.

"Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public," Stein noted. "Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress's constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens."

The announcement seemingly comes in response to growing demands from illegal alien advocates that the administration exercise broad discretionary powers not to enforce laws against entire classes of people who are in the country illegally. "In spite of repeated statements from President Obama himself that he lacks the constitutional authority to implement an amnesty by executive fiat, the administration is now doing precisely that," said Stein.

"This step by the White House amounts to a complete abrogation of the President's duty to enforce the laws of the land and a huge breach of the public trust. Never, in the history of federal immigration enforcement, has an administration willfully and so egregiously usurped Congress's and the people's role to decide immigration issues. In essence, the administration has declared that U.S. immigration is now virtually unlimited to anyone willing to try to enter – and only those who commit violent felonies after arrival are subject to enforcement. This is not the nation's immigration law," concluded Stein.

the rest at..
Administrative Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is a Blatant Usurpation of Congress's Constitutional Authority,... -- WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Neither you nor the linked article cite any case law, precedent, or judicial authority confirming the Administration has done anything illegal or un-Constitutional. This is mere partisan hysterics.

Its called prosecutorial discretion. Law enforcement agencies and local and state counsel make these kinds of decisions all the time.

Correct.

This criminal act that is being perpetrated upon the citizenry of this nation by our own president must be stopped immediately. Our president is no president, he is well on his way to becoming a dictator and I am really worried that he may enact some or all of these executive orders in an attempt to stay in "power" once he is voted out.

What ‘criminal act’ has Obama committed, other than of being of the wrong party. If you believe the cited EOs are un-Constitutional, cite the cases declaring them so. But EOs have been around since Washington, it’s a little late to complain about them now. Of course your anger is predicated on the fact Obama is a democrat, having nothing to do with the EO.

And if you feel this strongly about it, why haven’t you filed a complaint in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this or any EO.

 

[PattGarrett]

Administrative Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is a Blatant Usurpation of Congress's Const

CALL YOUR REPESENTIVES FOLKS. and any Republicans CALL the Presidential candidates that are running.

SNIP:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) responded sharply to today's White House announcement that it will essentially halt enforcement against illegal aliens who have not been convicted of criminal offenses. Today's move by the Obama administration amounts to an administrative amnesty and a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration policy without approval by Congress, charged FAIR. The announcement was posted on the White House website.

Under the guise of setting priorities for immigration enforcement, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz lays out entire classes of illegal aliens who will no longer be subject to enforcement. The plan entails dropping existing cases and taking "steps to keep low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline in the first place," Munoz writes.

"Today's policy announcement clearly demonstrates the Obama administration's defiance of both the constitutional separation of powers and the will of the American public in its relentless effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "From the outset, the administration has refused to enforce many immigration laws, essentially placing its own political agenda ahead of its constitutional responsibilities to carry out laws enacted by Congress. It has also acted aggressively to prevent state governments from implementing laws aimed at discouraging illegal immigration, including filing lawsuits against Arizona and Alabama.

"Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public," Stein noted. "Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress's constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens."

The announcement seemingly comes in response to growing demands from illegal alien advocates that the administration exercise broad discretionary powers not to enforce laws against entire classes of people who are in the country illegally. "In spite of repeated statements from President Obama himself that he lacks the constitutional authority to implement an amnesty by executive fiat, the administration is now doing precisely that," said Stein.

"This step by the White House amounts to a complete abrogation of the President's duty to enforce the laws of the land and a huge breach of the public trust. Never, in the history of federal immigration enforcement, has an administration willfully and so egregiously usurped Congress's and the people's role to decide immigration issues. In essence, the administration has declared that U.S. immigration is now virtually unlimited to anyone willing to try to enter – and only those who commit violent felonies after arrival are subject to enforcement. This is not the nation's immigration law," concluded Stein.

the rest at..
Administrative Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is a Blatant Usurpation of Congress's Constitutional Authority,... -- WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Neither you nor the linked article cite any case law, precedent, or judicial authority confirming the Administration has done anything illegal or un-Constitutional. This is mere partisan hysterics.

Its called prosecutorial discretion. Law enforcement agencies and local and state counsel make these kinds of decisions all the time.

Correct.

This criminal act that is being perpetrated upon the citizenry of this nation by our own president must be stopped immediately. Our president is no president, he is well on his way to becoming a dictator and I am really worried that he may enact some or all of these executive orders in an attempt to stay in "power" once he is voted out.

What ‘criminal act’ has Obama committed, other than of being of the wrong party. If you believe the cited EOs are un-Constitutional, cite the cases declaring them so. But EOs have been around since Washington, it’s a little late to complain about them now. Of course your anger is predicated on the fact Obama is a democrat, having nothing to do with the EO.

And if you feel this strongly about it, why haven’t you filed a complaint in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this or any EO.

It really amuses me how people like you instantly draw assumptions that a person is angry when they don't see things your way. Or how you want to again assume that a person's feelings are based off of political party lines. I could care less what party Obama is in, personally I see all political parties to be a cancer to American government and our liberties.

As Madison and Hamilton stated many times in the Federalist Papers, political factions are one of the biggest dangers to our government. The reason for this is that when you have people that are more willing to stick to their political parties ideals then you have people that are more interested in serving their party instead of their country and the constituents that elected them.

I have equal distain for both the Dems and Repub's, because they are both equally to blame for the clogging up of our government with their special interests and party interests. They would both rather bring our government to a halt just to accomplish their party ideals instead of serving the people that elected them. I claim allegiance to no political party, my political affiliation is as an American.

To answer your question as to why I haven't filed a brief in Federal Court challenging this EO, well the EO has not been published in the Federal Registry yet so therefore it would be a moot issue and there is no action to file a brief against yet.

The Supreme Court's opinion in the "Steel Seizure Case" striking down Truman's executive order, as well as subsequent practice, helped create a workable understanding regarding when a President's executive order authority is and is not valid. A slight modification of Justice Robert Jackson's famous framework of analysis is as follows: The President's authority (to act or issue an executive order) is at its apex when his action is based on an express grant of power in the Constitution, in a statute, or both. His action is the most questionable when there is no grant of constitutional authority to him (express or inherent) and his action is contrary to a statute or provision of the Constitution. Although this framework of analysis is a helpful starting point, a deeper understanding still requires a substantive knowledge of the relevant statutory law and a President's and Congress's constitutional powers.

For example, a careful review of the substantive law shows why President Truman's desegregation of the armed forces was proper notwithstanding Congress's constitutional authority regarding the military. Congress has the power to create or abolish the military forces, and it has the power to "make Rules for the Government and regulation" of the military, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Congress's constitutional power permits it to establish standards for the induction of soldiers, including height, weight, and age restrictions. When Congress has acted pursuant to its constitutional authority and its act does not violate any other provision of the Constitution, its rules govern who shall serve in the military, what their pay and retirement age shall be, etc.

But when President Truman desegregated the armed forces, he was not interfering with any congressional power over induction or any military rules of conduct. President Truman exercised his authority as Commander in Chief to assign individual soldiers lawfully in his command to units that he deemed appropriate. Truman also had a constitutional duty to stop government racial discrimination. Thus, even if Congress wanted to override the desegregation order, it possessed no authority to tell the President how to detail or utilize the soldiers already in his command, and the President had an obligation to end racial discrimination. This example demonstrates that an application of the Legal framework requires careful attention to the underlying constitutional and statutory powers of each branch.

There may be close cases in which the validity of the executive order is uncertain, such as when a claim of inherent constitutional authority is arguable and where Congress has been silent or its will is unclear. Nevertheless, Presidents since Truman were generally more careful to stay within their constitutional and statutory grants of authority in the exercise of their executive order authority--until the Administration of President Clinton. Although the number of illegal executive orders issued by President Clinton does not constitute a large percentage of his total of 364, the pattern of illegal orders, often without any claim of statutory or constitutional authority, is still striking. The clearest example was Clinton's "striker replacement" executive order. The Legal decision it spawned provides additional guidance in determining the legality of future executive orders and thus is worthy of a brief discussion.

In 1993, President Clinton urged Congress to enact a statute that would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements for workers who are on strike. The right to hire such permanent replacement workers was firmly established in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and in decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress refused to authorize the change in law in 1993-1994. Shortly after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12954 in an attempt to achieve through executive fiat what he could not achieve through legislation. Clinton claimed authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (the "Procurement Act") to require all large government contractors, which employed roughly 22 percent of the Labor force, to agree not to hire permanent replacements for lawfully striking employees.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously overturned the executive order and the implementing regulations that had been issued by the Secretary of Labor. The court first determined that it had jurisdiction over the case despite what the court described as President Clinton's "breathtakingly broad claim of non-reviewability of presidential actions." In short, the court said that it did not have to defer to the President's claim that he was acting pursuant to lawful authority under the Procurement Act. On the merits, the court ruled that since the NLRA "undoubtedly" grants an employer the right to hire permanent replacements for striking workers, it would not read the general purposes of the Procurement Act as trumping this specific right of employers. The court distinguished Executive Order 11246 (which guaranteed equal employment opportunities) and Executive Order 12092 (which restricted wage increases for government contractors) as not being in conflict with any other statute.

The striker replacement case stands for the seemingly obvious proposition that the President may not use his statutory discretion in one area to override a right or duty established in another law. As a Legal matter, however, it does not stand for the proposition that the President may not use his statutory discretion in one area to advance other lawful policy goals. Whether it is wise to do so is a separate question. Some thoughtful people have argued that a President ought not to use his procurement power or similar administrative discretion to promote unrelated policy goals, but that is a political and prudential matter about which reasonable people can differ.

If the President's authority is implied or inherent in a statutory grant of power, Congress remains free to negate or modify the underlying authority. Congress also has some latitude in defining or refining the procedures the President must take in the exercise of that authority, although there are some constitutional limits to Congress's power to micromanage executive branch decision-making procedures.

When the President is exercising powers inherent in Article II of the Constitution, Congress has much less ability to regulate or circumscribe the President's use of written directives. Some of President Clinton's claims of implied and inherent authority were outrageous. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down one of his executive orders that was based on such an overly broad claim, demonstrating that a President's claim that he is exercising inherent constitutional power will not always prevail. But when the President really is exercising a legitimate constitutional power--for example, his authority as Commander in Chief--Congress and the courts have little or no say in how the President communicates his commands.

There are many legitimate uses of presidential directives. The following functions of the President expressly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution are among the more important under which the President may issue at least some directives in the exercise of his constitutional and statutorily delegated powers:

Commander in Chief. The President's power as Commander in Chief is limited by other constitutional powers granted to Congress, such as the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, make rules (i.e., laws) for the regulation of the armed forces, and provide for calling forth the militia of the several states. However, the President's power as military commander is still very broad with respect to the armed forces at his disposal, including some situations in which Congress has not acted to declare war.

Head of State. The President is solely responsible for carrying out foreign policy, which includes the sole power to recognize foreign governments, receive foreign ambassadors, and negotiate treaties. Congress may enact laws affecting foreign policy, and two-thirds of the Senate must ratify any treaty before it becomes binding law, but Congress must still leave the execution of foreign policy and diplomatic relations to the President.

Chief Law Enforcement Officer. The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.

Head of the Executive Branch. The Framers debated and rejected the creation of a plural executive. They selected a "unitary executive" and determined that he alone would be vested with "the executive power" of Article II. After much debate, the Framers also determined that the President would nominate and appoint (with the Senate's consent in some cases) all officers in the executive branch. With very few exceptions, all appointed officials who work in the executive branch serve at the will and pleasure of the President, even if Congress has specified a term of years for a particular office. All of this was designed to ensure the President's control over officials in the executive branch and to promote "energy in the executive."


"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
--U.S. Constitution, Art. I, S. 1

This means that only congress has the authority to legislate laws. Since congress did not pass the Dream Act and Obama is attempting to write a law via his executive power he is, usurping congress and attempting to create a law when he does not have the authority to do so since all legislative powers are vested in congress.

Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress.

Therefore since Art.2 of the constitution does not give the executive the power to legislate, and the Dream Act is not an existing law (because congress did not pass the bill) and congress did not expressly give the president the authority to modify the Dream Act, Obama does not have the authority under Art. 2 of the constitution or statutory authority to proceed with the law without expressly being given authority by congress.

This is the purpose of the seperation of powers that is inherent in our constitution. If the president could simply override the decisions of congress by issuing executive orders, then the powers of congress would be moot on every issue that comes before them. As Madison stated in Federalist #46, "The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny". Tyranny is exactly what we would have if the president could simply issue an executive order anytime he wanted a law that congress refuses to pass.

If this is not enough information for you then please let me know and I will be more than happy to provide you with more.

 

[Angelhair]

Angelhair, we don't have a fool in office, we have a very dangerous Anti-American that is hell bent on collecting all powers under the executive branch in an attempt to "fundamentally transform" America into a dictator state.

Okay he IS a fool and a would-be dictator. This I guess is what americans wanted as he WAS voted in. Why did some of US see the writing on the wall and the majority did not????......

 

[LilOlLady]

PUBLIC WITNESS - Stop Deportations! Stop Ripping Families Apart!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnqfbGUe1jw]PUBLIC WITNESS - Stop Deportations! Stop Ripping Families Apart! - YouTube[/ame]

Bunch of old retirement home hags.

 

[LilOlLady]

Remember this woman?


Illegal Immigrant Advocate for Families Is Deported
August 21, 2007

The woman, Elvira Arellano, 32, had defied a federal deportation order by spending much of the past year in a Chicago church seeking to raise awareness of how deportations can separate families. Ms. Arellano left the church over the weekend to visit churches around the country, joined by her 8-year-old son, Saul, who was born in the United States.

Illegal Immigrant Advocate for Families Is Deported - New York Times


Elvira Arellano’s Son Moves To Mexico With Mami Jennifer Woodard Maderazo
17 Sep 2007
On Thursday, Elvira Arellano‘s 8 year old son Saul, was reunited with his activist mother in Mexico, for good. Saul is set to start third grade in Elvira’s home state of Michoacan. Elvira was arrested and deported from the U.S. in August, leaving her U.S. citizen son behind
http://vivirlatino.com/2007/09/17/elvira-arellanos-son-moves-to-mexico-with-mami.php


Elvira Arellano to run for seat in Mexico's Congress
By Oscar Avila | June 27, 2009

From illegal immigrant to congresswoman? Elvira Arellano, the controversial activist who spent a year in a Humboldt Park church in an unsuccessful bid to avoid deportation, is running for a seat in Mexico's Congress. If elected July 5, she would represent a district in Tijuana, the border city where she first arrived after being deported from the U.S. in 2007. Since then, Arellano has criss-crossed Mexico and traveled to Spain, Italy and Cuba to promote greater human-rights protections for migrants.

Articles about Elvira Arellano - Chicago Tribune

 

[Angelhair]

Remember this woman?


Illegal Immigrant Advocate for Families Is Deported
August 21, 2007

The woman, Elvira Arellano, 32, had defied a federal deportation order by spending much of the past year in a Chicago church seeking to raise awareness of how deportations can separate families. Ms. Arellano left the church over the weekend to visit churches around the country, joined by her 8-year-old son, Saul, who was born in the United States.

Illegal Immigrant Advocate for Families Is Deported - New York Times


Elvira Arellano’s Son Moves To Mexico With Mami Jennifer Woodard Maderazo
17 Sep 2007
On Thursday, Elvira Arellano‘s 8 year old son Saul, was reunited with his activist mother in Mexico, for good. Saul is set to start third grade in Elvira’s home state of Michoacan. Elvira was arrested and deported from the U.S. in August, leaving her U.S. citizen son behind
Elvira Arellano’s Son Moves To Mexico With Mami | VivirLatino


Elvira Arellano to run for seat in Mexico's Congress
By Oscar Avila | June 27, 2009

From illegal immigrant to congresswoman? Elvira Arellano, the controversial activist who spent a year in a Humboldt Park church in an unsuccessful bid to avoid deportation, is running for a seat in Mexico's Congress. If elected July 5, she would represent a district in Tijuana, the border city where she first arrived after being deported from the U.S. in 2007. Since then, Arellano has criss-crossed Mexico and traveled to Spain, Italy and Cuba to promote greater human-rights protections for migrants.

Articles about Elvira Arellano - Chicago Tribune

LOL, LOL. What can one expect of mediocre Mexico??? If the people vote this woman in, I rest my case!! What does she intend to do in office? Change the immigration laws of the U.S.of A.???? And of Spain, Italy and Cuba????

 

[LilOlLady]

Want a work pemit or green card? Commit a crime and get arrested.



The Obama administration said Thursday it will allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in the U.S. and apply for a work permit, while it focuses on removing those who pose a danger to public safety.
» Barack Obama Cannot Get Congress To Pass Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants… Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!