Future Presidents Can Now Ignore Other Laws Thanks To Obama

[mudwhistle]

Obama has opened a Pandora's Box when he decided to ignore immigration laws.

This is not the first time Obama has ignored the law. The first was when he decided not to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers who were indicted for preventing white voters from voting during the 2008 election. There have been several instances of the president ignoring or refusing to prosecute, one of them is gays in the military.

What would happen if somebody where elected that had a totally different ideology and decided that he wasn't going to enforce same-sex marriage rights, or what if states just decided that they wanted to make abortions illegal?

What if the next president decided that the separation of church and state doesn't exist anymore? Who needs Congress anymore. Just install a dictator and maybe alot of our problems could be solved over night. A good portion of the population would get upset about this, but really, Obama has decided that some laws mean more than others, so who needs laws anyway. Just make them up as you go along. Forget jurisprudence.

 

[JoeB131]

This is not the first time Obama has ignored the law. The first was when he decided not to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers who were indicted for preventing white voters from voting during the 2008 election. There have been several instances of the president ignoring or refusing to prosecute, one of them is gays in the military.

Okay, these are your best two examples?

DADT wasn't a law, it was a policy set down by his predecessor. One that was clearly not working because after DADT was instituted, discharges for being gay increased. Until 9/11, when they didn't care how many cocks you sucked, they needed warm bodies in those uniforms.

For the New Black Panthers, it wasn't a federal case. Local authorities arrested and charged those clowns.

What would happen if somebody where elected that had a totally different ideology and decided that he wasn't going to enforce same-sex marriage rights, or what if states just decided that they wanted to make abortions illegal?

Then they'd have a bit of a problem, as those things have solid court precedences behind them, unlike the two examples you gave or immigration.

Do you not understand how law works? Do you need someone to explain the big words to you?

What if the next president decided that the separation of church and state doesn't exist anymore? Who needs Congress anymore. Just install a dictator and maybe alot of our problems could be solved over night. A good portion of the population would get upset about this, but really, Obama has decided that some laws mean more than others, so who needs laws anyway. Just make them up as you go along. Forget jurisprudence.

The reason why Obama is going to get away with this is because most Republicans secretly want amnesty. They are just happy to let him take the hit, if any.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So who was the last president not to give executive orders?

The answer is William Henry Harrison, he issued none. He left office in 1841 after a month due Pneumonia, one of those things that tends to get in the way of being the President.

Bush W. issued 291, to Obama's 194, Washington has 8 FDR had 3,522, Reagan 381 the most since Eisenhower.

So precedent is clearly not the issue here.

 

[mudwhistle]

So who was the last president not to give executive orders?

The answer is William Henry Harrison, he issued none. He left office in 1841 after a month due Pneumonia, one of those things that tends to get in the way of being the President.

Bush W. issued 291, to Obama's 194, Washington has 8 FDR had 3,522, Reagan 381 the most since Eisenhower.

So precedent is clearly not the issue here.

Presidents issue EO to assist in doing their duty, not to change laws.

It is interesting to read the restrictions on the president’s power the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) made on this executive order.

First, we learn that the President did not obtain an OLC memo for his 2012 DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] program. Rather, only oral advice was given. We also learn that OLC limited DACA, and explained that the deferred action could not be given as a class. Rather it must be given on a case-by-case basis.

[snip]

Second, based on this initial device, the OLC memo makes a very strong effort at crafting a line between prosecutorial discretion and abuse of discretion. While there are many citations to Hackler v. Chaney, the argument boils down to this point: when deferrals must be made on a case-by-case basis, this does not amount to an abdication of enforcing the law, and a transformation into rewriting the law.

[snip]

Third, the memo explains that deferring deportations of parents of U.S. Citizens or Lawfully Present Residents is permissible, because there is a path to citizenship for the parents, through the kids.

[snip]

Fourth, the memo makes clear that the parents of the DACA recipients are not eligible for deferrals due to the very important reason I noted yesterday – they do not have a pathway to citizenship. Therefore, this would not be a temporary gap.

[snip]

Fifth, the memo address whether size matters. In effect, addressing whether this unprecedented expansion of power is lawful. First, it concedes that the size of the program exceeds that of any previous deferred action.

[snip]

I pause to note that this is a remarkable limitation imposed by OLC on the President’s power. I am very glad to see this actually exists. Though, it seems that DHS was okay with this authority.

Sixth, the memo repeats at several points a discussion of acquiescence. Congress has acquiesced to the President’s deferred action, and given the Executive a de facto license of sorts to proceed.

[snip]

Seventh, in perhaps an indirect reference to attempts to defund the program, the memo notes that the action would be “borne almost entirely” by application fees–something Congress arguably cannot touch. I don’t think this point was inadvertent, as there are already debates about whether program can be defunded.

[snip]

Eighth, as for the line-drawing issue, the memo seems to acknowledge that Youngstown controls, and that executive discretion cannot be absolute.

Immigration officials’ discretion in enforcing the laws is not, however, unlimited. Limits on enforcement discretion are both implicit in, and fundamental to, the Constitution’s allocation of governmental powers between the two political branches. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587– 88 (1952).



​

Obama sites prosecutorial discretion applied to this EO, but that can only be applied to a case by case basis, not a wide sweeping declaration for future cases.

​

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama was asked yesterday by George Stepenopilous if his EO could apply to tax laws, he said definitely not.

So Obama likes illegal immigration but not tax evasion. He will continue to hammer people for not paying their taxes, but then again he will also refuse to go after anyone who does him a favor, like Al Sharpton or Warren Buffet who both owe millions.

This delegitimizes his EO on immigration.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quit yer whinging.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is not the first time Obama has ignored the law. The first was when he decided not to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers who were indicted for preventing white voters from voting during the 2008 election. There have been several instances of the president ignoring or refusing to prosecute, one of them is gays in the military.

Okay, these are your best two examples?

DADT wasn't a law, it was a policy set down by his predecessor. One that was clearly not working because after DADT was instituted, discharges for being gay increased. Until 9/11, when they didn't care how many cocks you sucked, they needed warm bodies in those uniforms.

For the New Black Panthers, it wasn't a federal case. Local authorities arrested and charged those clowns.

What would happen if somebody where elected that had a totally different ideology and decided that he wasn't going to enforce same-sex marriage rights, or what if states just decided that they wanted to make abortions illegal?

Then they'd have a bit of a problem, as those things have solid court precedences behind them, unlike the two examples you gave or immigration.

Do you not understand how law works? Do you need someone to explain the big words to you?

What if the next president decided that the separation of church and state doesn't exist anymore? Who needs Congress anymore. Just install a dictator and maybe alot of our problems could be solved over night. A good portion of the population would get upset about this, but really, Obama has decided that some laws mean more than others, so who needs laws anyway. Just make them up as you go along. Forget jurisprudence.

The reason why Obama is going to get away with this is because most Republicans secretly want amnesty. They are just happy to let him take the hit, if any.

By the time 2016 rolls around, the government will have in its possession a list of all the undocumented immigrants who 'came out of the shadows' under the protection of the Obama EO.

If the Republicans want to stick to their no 'amnesty' principle, all the GOP candidate for president has to do is run on a promise to revoke Obama's EO,

and use that list to immediately initiate deportation prosecutions on every person on it,

as a top priorty.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama was asked yesterday by George Stepenopilous if his EO could apply to tax laws, he said definitely not.

So Obama likes illegal immigration but not tax evasion. He will continue to hammer people for not paying their taxes, but then again he will also refuse to go after anyone who does him a favor, like Al Sharpton or Warren Buffet who both owe millions.

This delegitimizes his EO on immigration.

reality check.

his EO on immigration is just facing reality.

IT's setting priorities with limited resources.

We only have enough legal resources to deport 400,000 illegals a year - lack of enforcement officers, investigators, courts, facilities to incarcerate them in, and the amount of their own citizens countries are willing to take back without a fight.

We have 11,000,000 illegals in this country.

So it would take 30 years to deport them all at current rates.

Or you simply prioritize who you want to deport. The DREAMer doesn't need to be deported. He speaks English, he's working within the system, he's not a problem.

The person who has been here for years and has roots in the community doesn't need to be deported, either.

 

[rightwinger]

Future Presidents will now be able to issue Executive Orders.....just like they always have

 

[frigidweirdo]

So who was the last president not to give executive orders?

The answer is William Henry Harrison, he issued none. He left office in 1841 after a month due Pneumonia, one of those things that tends to get in the way of being the President.

Bush W. issued 291, to Obama's 194, Washington has 8 FDR had 3,522, Reagan 381 the most since Eisenhower.

So precedent is clearly not the issue here.

Presidents issue EO to assist in doing their duty, not to change laws.

It is interesting to read the restrictions on the president’s power the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) made on this executive order.

First, we learn that the President did not obtain an OLC memo for his 2012 DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] program. Rather, only oral advice was given. We also learn that OLC limited DACA, and explained that the deferred action could not be given as a class. Rather it must be given on a case-by-case basis.

[snip]

Second, based on this initial device, the OLC memo makes a very strong effort at crafting a line between prosecutorial discretion and abuse of discretion. While there are many citations to Hackler v. Chaney, the argument boils down to this point: when deferrals must be made on a case-by-case basis, this does not amount to an abdication of enforcing the law, and a transformation into rewriting the law.

[snip]

Third, the memo explains that deferring deportations of parents of U.S. Citizens or Lawfully Present Residents is permissible, because there is a path to citizenship for the parents, through the kids.

[snip]

Fourth, the memo makes clear that the parents of the DACA recipients are not eligible for deferrals due to the very important reason I noted yesterday – they do not have a pathway to citizenship. Therefore, this would not be a temporary gap.

[snip]

Fifth, the memo address whether size matters. In effect, addressing whether this unprecedented expansion of power is lawful. First, it concedes that the size of the program exceeds that of any previous deferred action.

[snip]

I pause to note that this is a remarkable limitation imposed by OLC on the President’s power. I am very glad to see this actually exists. Though, it seems that DHS was okay with this authority.

Sixth, the memo repeats at several points a discussion of acquiescence. Congress has acquiesced to the President’s deferred action, and given the Executive a de facto license of sorts to proceed.

[snip]

Seventh, in perhaps an indirect reference to attempts to defund the program, the memo notes that the action would be “borne almost entirely” by application fees–something Congress arguably cannot touch. I don’t think this point was inadvertent, as there are already debates about whether program can be defunded.

[snip]

Eighth, as for the line-drawing issue, the memo seems to acknowledge that Youngstown controls, and that executive discretion cannot be absolute.

Immigration officials’ discretion in enforcing the laws is not, however, unlimited. Limits on enforcement discretion are both implicit in, and fundamental to, the Constitution’s allocation of governmental powers between the two political branches. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587– 88 (1952).



​

Obama sites prosecutorial discretion applied to this EO, but that can only be applied to a case by case basis, not a wide sweeping declaration for future cases.

​

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order.

FDR made Executive Orders banning the hoarding of gold, for example.

George W Bush issued one which restricted public access to Presidential Papers, such access was allowed by law, Obama took this away by Executive Order.

Precedent? No, it's been happening for a long time and it will happen in the future.

If it is unconstitutional the Supreme Court can take it down.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey.....when the next president, with the stroke of a pen, mandates privatization of social security, Im all in. And guess what? The progressives cant say dick.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Obama was asked yesterday by George Stepenopilous if his EO could apply to tax laws, he said definitely not.

So Obama likes illegal immigration but not tax evasion. He will continue to hammer people for not paying their taxes, but then again he will also refuse to go after anyone who does him a favor, like Al Sharpton or Warren Buffet who both owe millions.

This delegitimizes his EO on immigration.

reality check.

his EO on immigration is just facing reality.

IT's setting priorities with limited resources.

We only have enough legal resources to deport 400,000 illegals a year - lack of enforcement officers, investigators, courts, facilities to incarcerate them in, and the amount of their own citizens countries are willing to take back without a fight.

We have 11,000,000 illegals in this country.

So it would take 30 years to deport them all at current rates.

Or you simply prioritize who you want to deport. The DREAMer doesn't need to be deported. He speaks English, he's working within the system, he's not a problem.

The person who has been here for years and has roots in the community doesn't need to be deported, either.

get rid of all of those people who have no immigrant blood in them, then see what the US looks like.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh....too......I can look forward to our next president using prosecutional discretion to fubar Roe vs Wade.............fucking win.


And the progressives cant say dick.

 

[Mac1958]

Obama has opened a Pandora's Box when he decided to ignore immigration laws.

That's been my concern on this decision, more so than the substance of the decision itself.

The lefties will say you're whining, but this provides an excuse and precedent for future Presidents to continue to push the envelope. Party affiliation irrelevant.

And does anyone really think that they'll restrain themselves and decide not to try? Right.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Obama has opened a Pandora's Box when he decided to ignore immigration laws.

That's been my concern on this decision, more so than the substance of the decision itself.

The lefties will say you're whining, but this provides an excuse and precedent for future Presidents to continue to push the envelope. Party affiliation irrelevant.

And does anyone really think that they'll restrain themselves and decide not to try? Right.

.

In theory the checks and balances will control things. Firstly a president does anything Congress can withdraw the purse strings, then you have the Supreme Court. It's not like a blank check here.

 

[Mac1958]

Obama has opened a Pandora's Box when he decided to ignore immigration laws.

That's been my concern on this decision, more so than the substance of the decision itself.

The lefties will say you're whining, but this provides an excuse and precedent for future Presidents to continue to push the envelope. Party affiliation irrelevant.

And does anyone really think that they'll restrain themselves and decide not to try? Right.

.

In theory the checks and balances will control things. Firstly a president does anything Congress can withdraw the purse strings, then you have the Supreme Court. It's not like a blank check here.

Yeah, fair enough, I just don't like the trajectory we're on.

I'd rather see it going in the opposite direction, but it's party over country right now.

.

 

[Seawytch]

Obama has opened a Pandora's Box when he decided to ignore immigration laws.

That's been my concern on this decision, more so than the substance of the decision itself.

The lefties will say you're whining, but this provides an excuse and precedent for future Presidents to continue to push the envelope. Party affiliation irrelevant.

And does anyone really think that they'll restrain themselves and decide not to try? Right.

.

President Obama is operating on precedent. Other Presidents (Republican and Democrat) have issued executive orders dealing with our broken immigration system. EOs very similar to President Obama's.

 

[Mac1958]

Obama has opened a Pandora's Box when he decided to ignore immigration laws.

That's been my concern on this decision, more so than the substance of the decision itself.

The lefties will say you're whining, but this provides an excuse and precedent for future Presidents to continue to push the envelope. Party affiliation irrelevant.

And does anyone really think that they'll restrain themselves and decide not to try? Right.

.

President Obama is operating on precedent. Other Presidents (Republican and Democrat) have issued executive orders dealing with our broken immigration system. EOs very similar to President Obama's.

It's very difficult to believe that White House lawyers didn't go over this thing with a fine tooth comb.

The GOP is focusing on the wrong stuff.

.

 

[Wildman]

muslime mulatto Obola should be in prison !! Ft. Leavenworth would be a good place for him, build a mud hut in the compound for his cell and feed him dried monkey meat and tubers.

i despise that fucking son-of-a-bitch (and she really was)

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, fair enough, I just don't like the trajectory we're on.

I'd rather see it going in the opposite direction, but it's party over country right now.

.

Literally the same thing they said in FDR's time, I mean he made a lot of new laws and people, especially the right, didn't like it.

The problem doesn't appear to be Executive Orders. The problem seems to just be the massive partisan bull that is going on between the two parties. A change of system, an opening up of ideas, of democracy, of working together because they have to work together is what is needed.

People don't seems to think they have much choice in who they vote for, so the big two can simply do what they like and know they'll still be voted for. Proper democracy would take this away from them.

 

[Seawytch]

Obama has opened a Pandora's Box when he decided to ignore immigration laws.

That's been my concern on this decision, more so than the substance of the decision itself.

The lefties will say you're whining, but this provides an excuse and precedent for future Presidents to continue to push the envelope. Party affiliation irrelevant.

And does anyone really think that they'll restrain themselves and decide not to try? Right.

.

President Obama is operating on precedent. Other Presidents (Republican and Democrat) have issued executive orders dealing with our broken immigration system. EOs very similar to President Obama's.

It's very difficult to believe that White House lawyers didn't go over this thing with a fine tooth comb.

The GOP is focusing on the wrong stuff.

.

The GOP is focusing on the wrong stuff...no shit Captain Obvious. The GOP has been focused on only one thing since January 2009...obstructing President Obama and doing everything they can to make sure he doesn't have a "win" in his column.

The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation