Legal scholars say Obama violated constitution by giving amnesty to illegals

[Inthemiddle]

I must have missed that part in the constitution that says "thou shalt deport thine illegal immigrants."

 

[Moonglow]

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!!!

Got that right - we need to restrict voting. To those who say that would be unconstitutional, i point out that many states don't let felons vote. We could do the same thing with welfare recips.

Sorry, but no. You can't take away anyones right to vote cause they are on welfare. How sad that you would limit the freedoms established by this great nation. Should we only let landed males vote, such as the case in early US history? Stop letting the masses elect the executive branch such as the Fouding Fathers operated?

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

I think you ought to find the limits in the Constitution for granting amnesty and pardons. I haven't been able to find any.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

So you believe that congress has the rights to take away the rights of president, without a constitutional amendment?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm confused...isn't it the Supreme Court's job to rule on constitutionality?
What have they said about it?

The constitutionality of executive orders is determined on a case by case basis, as rulings are often narrow in relation to the specifics of the case.

In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), for example, the Court upheld the Reagan executive order freezing Iranian assets and nullifying judgements seeking restitution. Neither the IEEPA nor the Hostage Act authorized the president to take such action, but as the Court noted in its ruling:

Congress cannot anticipate and legislate with regard to every possible action the President may find it necessary to take, or every possible situation in which he might act.

Dames & Moore v. Regan

Executive orders are, therefore, as with all other acts of government, presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. See: Ogden v. Saunders (1827).

 

[uscitizen]

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.

So Obama is like Reagan.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Yet Congress has done nothing to stop the practice which has been in use since George Washington was president, and it's use by every president in the history of Constitutional governance in the US of A.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

So Obama is like Reagan.

In the sense that Reagan used EO to establish policy, yes.

 

[Moonglow]

The one thing that has been proven throught the history of the US and it's revolutionary ,before we were an independant nation, is that legislation can be slow or hindered by inaction because of a lack of consensus to pass laws in a manor of speed necessary to facilitate the need or the action required to deal with a crises or political situation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The one thing that has been proven throught the history of the US and it's revolutionary ,before we were an independant nation, is that legislation can be slow or hindered by inaction because of a lack of consensus to pass laws in a manor of speed necessary to facilitate the need or the action required to deal with a crises or political situation.

And we saw this well illustrated during the Cold War, culminating with Congress’ foolish abdication of its Constitutional mandate to declare war with the so-called ‘Wars Power Act.’

Presidents now have unbridled authority commit military forces whenever and however they see fit.

 

[Moonglow]

The one thing that has been proven throught the history of the US and it's revolutionary ,before we were an independant nation, is that legislation can be slow or hindered by inaction because of a lack of consensus to pass laws in a manor of speed necessary to facilitate the need or the action required to deal with a crises or political situation.

And we saw this well illustrated during the Cold War, culminating with Congress’ foolish abdication of its Constitutional mandate to declare war with the so-called ‘Wars Power Act.’

Presidents now have unbridled authority commit military forces whenever and however they see fit.

I can see the necessity to a degree for this ability giving that the size and scope of US military actions have greatly increased since the US became a world power. But, at the same time, the use can be abused and wasted on a personal agenda.
A debate much used in polisci class in college was, " what would happen if a president used the military to keep that president in office if the defeated incumbnt did not want to give up the position of the presidency.
"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silly extremist minority position that says all EOs since 1789 are illegal.

Silly you.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Immaterial.

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?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course they are legal.

That's your problem, no one else.

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.”

No they weren't. But typical of you and your ilk you think so.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Mac1958's Unsolicited and Probably Wildly Unpopular Illegal Immigration Policy:

1. Bring all troops home from the Middle East shit hole
2. Bring most troops home from other countries, those countries can start taking care of themselves for a fucking change
3. Use American troops to seal American borders north and south
4. Grant illegals Temporary Guest Worker status - they pay our taxes and fees but do not vote until they are citizens
5. Put those people at the end of the immigration line
6. Review policy in 10 years

.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

Nonsense.

The courts have reviewed and held as Constitutional numerous EO’s. See, e.g., Contractors Association v. the Secretary of Labor and AFL-CIO v. Kahn.

[/QUOTE]

HAHAHA. Of course the federal courts say EOs are constitutional. But how can they be when the Constitution clearly says otherwise? The states are supposed to be sovereign countries and it's time they stood up to the feds and said EOs are unconstitutional and thus void.

 

[jillian]

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.

oh noooooo... partisan hacks who pick justices like thomas and scalia have a problem with the president!!! OMG!!! stop the presses!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Silly extremist minority position that says all EOs since 1789 are illegal.

So how do you reconcile EOs with the constitution. It says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

 

[Inthemiddle]

HAHAHA. Of course the federal courts say EOs are constitutional. But how can they be when the Constitution clearly says otherwise? The states are supposed to be sovereign countries and it's time they stood up to the feds and said EOs are unconstitutional and thus void.

Spoken like a truly ignorant partisan hack.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Silly extremist minority position that says all EOs since 1789 are illegal.

So how do you reconcile EOs with the constitution. It says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Very simple: Executive orders are not legislation. They are an exercise of executive power, which is vested in by the constitution to the President.