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.
