Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama's refusal to deport illegal aliens unconstitutional, say law professors | Fox News
By Perry ChiaramontePublished October 13, 2012FoxNews.com
Two law professors, including one who served in the Bush Justice Department, have published a paper charging that President Obama violated the Constitution with his directive to law enforcement not to deport illegal aliens.
In the paper entitled, The Obama Administration, the Dream Act and the Take Care Clause, authors Robert Delahunty of the University of St. Thomas [Minnesota] and John Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley and former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, blast Obama's moratorium on deporting certain illegal immigrants. The professors dismissed the idea that the decision on whether to deport illegal immigrants who are arrested for minor infractions is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
Its the duties of the president. He must always uphold the law.
- John Yoo, Berkeley law professor and former State Department attorney
If theres one case and its left to the prosecutor well thats fine, but what Obama did was take a million cases and leave it up to prosecutorial discretion, John Yoo said to FoxNews.com. The only reason its under [Department of Homeland Security Secretary] Janet Napolitanos discretion is because Obama had made his decision. If shes doing it under her own, she would have to be fired.
An abstract for the paper debunks the claim that the president has the Constitutional to not enforce civil laws crafted and passed by Congress.
Its the duty of the president. He must always uphold the law, Yoo said, adding that the only exceptions in doing so are if laws are unconstitutional or if prosecuting them can be reasonably deemed not viable.
Are you just figuring this out?
This is what the internet has been saying the last 4 months. The constitution says it is the duty of the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". If he wants amnesty obozo has to get the law changed - he can't just refuse to enforce the law.
Obama's refusal to deport illegal aliens unconstitutional, say law professors | Fox News
By Perry ChiaramontePublished October 13, 2012FoxNews.com
Two law professors, including one who served in the Bush Justice Department, have published a paper charging that President Obama violated the Constitution with his directive to law enforcement not to deport illegal aliens.
In the paper entitled, The Obama Administration, the Dream Act and the Take Care Clause, authors Robert Delahunty of the University of St. Thomas [Minnesota] and John Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley and former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, blast Obama's moratorium on deporting certain illegal immigrants. The professors dismissed the idea that the decision on whether to deport illegal immigrants who are arrested for minor infractions is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
Its the duties of the president. He must always uphold the law.
- John Yoo, Berkeley law professor and former State Department attorney
If theres one case and its left to the prosecutor well thats fine, but what Obama did was take a million cases and leave it up to prosecutorial discretion, John Yoo said to FoxNews.com. The only reason its under [Department of Homeland Security Secretary] Janet Napolitanos discretion is because Obama had made his decision. If shes doing it under her own, she would have to be fired.
An abstract for the paper debunks the claim that the president has the Constitutional to not enforce civil laws crafted and passed by Congress.
Its the duty of the president. He must always uphold the law, Yoo said, adding that the only exceptions in doing so are if laws are unconstitutional or if prosecuting them can be reasonably deemed not viable.
This is what the internet has been saying the last 4 months. The constitution says it is the duty of the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". If he wants amnesty obozo has to get the law changed - he can't just refuse to enforce the law.ys uphold the law.
You are entitled to your incorrect legal position. Yea, the President's orders were legal.
This is what the internet has been saying the last 4 months. The constitution says it is the duty of the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". If he wants amnesty obozo has to get the law changed - he can't just refuse to enforce the law.ys uphold the law.
This is what the internet has been saying the last 4 months. The constitution says it is the duty of the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". If he wants amnesty obozo has to get the law changed - he can't just refuse to enforce the law.
Obama's refusal to deport illegal aliens unconstitutional, say law professors | Fox News
By Perry ChiaramontePublished October 13, 2012FoxNews.com
Two law professors, including one who served in the Bush Justice Department, have published a paper charging that President Obama violated the Constitution with his directive to law enforcement not to deport illegal aliens.
In the paper entitled, “The Obama Administration, the Dream Act and the Take Care Clause,” authors Robert Delahunty of the University of St. Thomas [Minnesota] and John Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley and former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, blast Obama's moratorium on deporting certain illegal immigrants. The professors dismissed the idea that the decision on whether to deport illegal immigrants who are arrested for minor infractions is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
“It’s the duties of the president. He must always uphold the law.”
- John Yoo, Berkeley law professor and former State Department attorney
“If there’s one case and it’s left to the prosecutor well that’s fine, but what Obama did was take a million cases and leave it up to prosecutorial discretion, “John Yoo said to FoxNews.com. “The only reason it’s under [Department of Homeland Security Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s discretion is because Obama had made his decision. If she’s doing it under her own, she would have to be fired.”
An abstract for the paper debunks the claim that the president has the Constitutional to not enforce civil laws crafted and passed by Congress.
“It’s the duty of the president. He must always uphold the law,” Yoo said, adding that the only exceptions in doing so are if laws are unconstitutional or if prosecuting them can be reasonably deemed not viable.
GOP Attorney General: Decision Was Not An Executive Order. In an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, conservative Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, a supporter of Republican Mitt Romney, brushed off the notion that the immigration policy change occurred via executive order:
Republicans and conservatives have argued either that Obama did this by executive order or more broadly that ignoring Congress represents dictatorial rule by fiat. But Shurtleff rejected that view, noting that this decision was not made via executive order and that the administration has the discretion to decide whom to prosecute.
"Law enforcement makes decisions based on the resources available to them -- until Congress acts, we'll be left with too many people to deport," Shurtleff said. "The administration is saying, 'Here's a group we could be spending our resources going after, but why? They're Americans, they see themselves as Americans, they love this country.'" [The Washington Post, The Plum Line, 6/15/12]
Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Is Different From Issuing An Executive Order | Research | Media Matters for America
You are entitled to your incorrect legal position. Yea, the President's orders were legal.
This is what the internet has been saying the last 4 months. The constitution says it is the duty of the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". If he wants amnesty obozo has to get the law changed - he can't just refuse to enforce the law.ys uphold the law.
When were you elected onto the SC, Jokey?
O
Even in a reasonably honest system, we have so many takers that it's getting unbalanced. This has been warned about for centuries. When the majority can vote themselves money from the tax payers, we are done!!!
John Yoo?
Youve got to be kidding.
And these scholars are playing politics, they know very well the president is not giving anyone amnesty and that the deferral policy is perfectly appropriate in the context of prosecutorial discretion:
No they weren't. But typical of you and your ilk you think so.You are entitled to your incorrect legal position. Yea, the President's orders were legal.
This is what the internet has been saying the last 4 months. The constitution says it is the duty of the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". If he wants amnesty obozo has to get the law changed - he can't just refuse to enforce the law.ys uphold the law.
John Yoo?
Youve got to be kidding.
And these scholars are playing politics, they know very well the president is not giving anyone amnesty and that the deferral policy is perfectly appropriate in the context of prosecutorial discretion:
And how do you justify prosecutorial discretion?? Are you allowed to rob a bank just because you have a family or are going to college??
You are wrong again butt boy.You are blah blahing again, CaliGirl.
The president's orders are legal until otherwise decided not so by the court.
Thus, your opinions, CG are as incorrect as SS, which is your right.
You are entitled to your incorrect legal position. Yea, the President's orders were legal.
When were you elected onto the SC, Jokey?
You are entitled to your incorrect legal position. Yea, the President's orders were legal.
You are entitled to your incorrect legal position. Yea, the President's orders were legal.
If it's unconstitutional, it can't be legal. In fact all EOs are illegal since the constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.
John Yoo?
Youve got to be kidding.
And these scholars are playing politics, they know very well the president is not giving anyone amnesty and that the deferral policy is perfectly appropriate in the context of prosecutorial discretion:
GOP Attorney General: Decision Was Not An Executive Order. In an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, conservative Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, a supporter of Republican Mitt Romney, brushed off the notion that the immigration policy change occurred via executive order:
Republicans and conservatives have argued either that Obama did this by executive order or more broadly that ignoring Congress represents dictatorial rule by fiat. But Shurtleff rejected that view, noting that this decision was not made via executive order and that the administration has the discretion to decide whom to prosecute.
"Law enforcement makes decisions based on the resources available to them -- until Congress acts, we'll be left with too many people to deport," Shurtleff said. "The administration is saying, 'Here's a group we could be spending our resources going after, but why? They're Americans, they see themselves as Americans, they love this country.'" [The Washington Post, The Plum Line, 6/15/12]
Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Is Different From Issuing An Executive Order | Research | Media Matters for America
