It is NOT in his powers. The COTUS regulates immigration, not the President. And if you are talking about amnesty for breaking the law of entering this country illegally, well the President can NOT grant amnesty for an ongoing crime.
ConHog, I can't speak for Mr. Fitnah, but as for myself I'm speaking about a presidential order, the equivalent of a law, and which has the effect of law until and unless rescinded or cancelled out by congress. Am I wrong about that?
A Presidential Order to do what Exactly? To open the borders or grant amnesty?
In either case the answer is no
1. Immigration law already exist they are on the books, It is NOT within the President's power to change laws he doesn't like, it is also not in his power to overturn laws that he feels are unconstitutional. The separation of powers is clear about that. This is why much as he would love to do it, Obama can't just say "Ok no more DADT" just for example. Nor is it in the President's power to make laws. Again, that is reserved for Congress
2. As for pardons, certainly he COULD grant 12 million pardons but then those people could immediately be arrested again for being in this country illegally, and he'd be right back to granting them pardons. i don't think SCOTUS would uphold that.
Ineresting. But isn't everything nowadays subject to semantic interpretations which take time to resolve?
ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?
Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless,
Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
Congressional Recourse
"If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.
Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.
In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions. "
