Barack Obama unilateral nullifying of laws highly illegal; Executive further usurping power from Congress and Judiciary

[Mr. Ambien]

Will bold emphasis, especially since the Reagan and Bush Sr. thing has been tossed around quite a bit in the liberal media defending illegal executive action they condemned of Dubya:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/20/is-obama-president-or-king-playing-with-constitutional-fire/

Is Obama a president or a king? Playing with constitutional fire

President Obama will address the nation Thursday night at 8 pm. He is expected to offer some form of limited amnesty to about five million foreign nationals who are currently living illegally in the United States. He will do so by issuing an executive order to federal officials who oversee immigration directing them to undertake a course of action that, if complied with individually by all persons whom he designates as eligible, will cause the federal government to remove the threat of deportation from those who meet the standards he will lay down.

Can he legally do that?

To address that question, we need to start with the principle that a presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional. The president has the legal power to defer deportations. The power is called prosecutorial discretion. This is a power traditionally recognized as inherent in the presidency that enables him to defer or modify all federal law enforcement.

The theory is that the president needs the ability to allocate resources as the changing times, emergent events and public needs may require. Thus, he can, for example, defer prosecuting bank robbers and aggressively pursue drug dealers. That wouldn’t mean that all bank robbers would go free; it would mean that either state prosecutors would pursue them, or they’d wait for trials until the drug kingpins were caught and convicted. But he could set some free if he wished.

The check on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is gross abuse, which is typically demonstrated by either improper executive motive or effective nullification of law. I don’t know what the president’s motive is. If it is political, I suspect his efforts will backfire. He cannot grant citizenship or the right to vote.

If his motive is humanitarian or moral, I understand him. Under the natural law, people have the right to travel and live wherever they wish. The existence of our natural rights is not conditioned upon the place where our mothers were at the times of our births. And from a free market and historical perspective, immigrants have enhanced the economy as they move up the demographic ladder.

But the president’s behavior has serious constitutional dimensions that go far beyond the motives in his heart, and his oath is to the Constitution, not to his heart.

If the president nullifies deportations on such a grand scale that the effect is the nullification of federal laws, then he has violated his oath “faithfully” to execute his presidential obligations. The Framers required that every president swear to do his job “faithfully” to serve as a reminder to him that his job requires fidelity to the enforcement of laws with which he may disagree. The American people, Congress and the courts need to know we have a president who will enforce the laws, whether he agrees with them in his heart or not. Without presidential fidelity to the rule of law, we have a king, not a president.

By conferring temporary legal status upon foreign nationals who have not achieved it under the law, providing they meet criteria that he will establish, the president affects huge numbers of persons and produces a result that is the opposite of what the law requires. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion constitutionally nullify a federal statute? No. Can the president’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion effectively rewrite a federal statute? No.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with them -- particularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has deferred some deportations. President Reagan deferred deportations for about 100,000 families of foreign nationals in 1987 under his reading of the congressionally authorized 1986 amnesty law, and President George H.W. Bush did so in 1990 for about 350,000 foreign nationals under his reading of the same law. Each of these was based on a principled public presidential reading of the words and purposes of a federal statute. Obama does not purport to read and interpret the current immigration law; rather, he effectively rewrites it.

What can Congress do?

Congress can pass legislation to invalidate Obama’s executive actions. Yet even if it did so and overrode his certain veto, it has no assurances that Obama would be bound by the new legislation. He refuses to enforce the plain language of well-established and never judicially altered federal statutes. What assurances does Congress have that he would follow any new statutes that he has vetoed and that regulate his behavior?

Is the blanket refusal to enforce federal laws that profoundly affect five million persons -- and in the process severely straining the social services of all 50 states -- an impeachable offense? The president is playing with constitutional fire, and impeachment is the only constitutional remedy available, short of 25 months of a constitutional conflagration that he has ignited.

But since Bush was never impeached, or even granted any sort of public hearing to publicly discuss and accuse him for his actions, there's just as much chance of another patented Constitution abuser being taken to task in Obama, and thus upping the ante for the next President to commit even further abuses of power. The President has deemed he can nullify laws, which only a court can do with a ruling, or Congress with passing a nullifying law. The President's Constitutional duties are to uphold them, with limits on his ability to "defer" laws, unable to nullify laws in whole. Further proof that Americans are losing control of their country, which bodes ill for the rest of the world too given how dangerous US foreign policy is for worldwide stability.

[Warhippy]

So because they didn't nail Bush to the wall Obama can get away with it?

Might as well have allowed Bush and Cheney to be brought up on war crimes then.

Bottom line is your ending statement is quite correct. We are seeing the massive shift of power from the people to the chosen few and the wealthy elite in the USA and there is literally less than nothing that the people will do about it. Once upon a time they'd have marched on DC in their hundreds of thousands

Now...they post angry emotes on twitter

[Mr. Ambien]

So because they didn't nail Bush to the wall Obama can get away with it?

Might as well have allowed Bush and Cheney to be brought up on war crimes then.

Bottom line is your ending statement is quite correct. We are seeing the massive shift of power from the people to the chosen few and the wealthy elite in the USA and there is literally less than nothing that the people will do about it. Once upon a time they'd have marched on DC in their hundreds of thousands

Now...they post angry emotes on twitter

There's a culture of protecting "one another" on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue.

That's why the 2006 Midterms Pelosi ran for Democrats on the platform of "running against Bush" but "not impeaching Bush". No surprise, Republicans in this midterm ruled out impeaching Obama as well.

Thus, we have come to the uselessness of "suing" the President for impeachable offenses rather than actually proceeding to impeach him. All theatre.

[Bocivus]

There's a culture of protecting "one another" on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue.

That's why the 2006 Midterms Pelosi ran for Democrats on the platform of "running against Bush" but "not impeaching Bush". No surprise, Republicans in this midterm ruled out impeaching Obama as well.

Thus, we have come to the uselessness of "suing" the President for impeachable offenses rather than actually proceeding to impeach him. All theatre.

Yup. It's all a charade. The rule of law in the US has been long dead. When a sitting Attorney General is held in CRIMINAL contempt of congress and absolutley nothing is done about it, it shows that "some pigs are more equal than others". (Animal Farm, George Orwell).

The elected "representatives" is a facade merely mollifying the masses into believing the rule of law by the Constitution still exists. It's gone and has been gone for a long time. The centralization of power has been steady forming for years.

I thought for a while that Trey Gowdy (Rep SC) could be the real deal but after he mocked impeachment proceedings by saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "We're not going to impeach Obama. Have you seen Joe Biden?" That is fine as a joke but I heard no follow up on a serious note.

[Ghostsof1915]

Take away your rights as a citizen by not allowing due process, that's ok because it has that wonderful sound of "Patriot Act".

The article conveniently avoids saying the what is really happening because it has an anti-immigrant slant. He's basically giving immigrants who didn't go through the process of going through immigration some measure of protection, and trying to keep families from being split up due to deportation.

Oddly enough a lot of 3rd and 4th generation Americans seem to forget America was build on immigrants from Europe who probably didn't go through any modern version of immigration. It took my co-worker almost 4 years to finally get her Canadian Visa, and she's educated and from the UK and is fluent in one our two official languages!

You might want to get your news from something other than the Fascist errr Fox News.

[Mr. Ambien]

Take away your rights as a citizen by not allowing due process, that's ok because it has that wonderful sound of "Patriot Act".

The article conveniently avoids saying the what is really happening because it has an anti-immigrant slant. He's basically giving immigrants who didn't go through the process of going through immigration some measure of protection, and trying to keep families from being split up due to deportation.

Oddly enough a lot of 3rd and 4th generation Americans seem to forget America was build on immigrants from Europe who probably didn't go through any modern version of immigration. It took my co-worker almost 4 years to finally get her Canadian Visa, and she's educated and from the UK and is fluent in one our two official languages!

You might want to get your news from something other than the Fascist errr Fox News.

I await you actually posting sources of your own before taking your "fascist news" comment serious.

I'd also check the very first part of my post. I've already went over numerous sources, none of them took a government-critical approach that went in detail about the specific legalities of what Obama's doing. It was either personal jabs at the President akin to DailyKOS's Bushisms, or the leftist media fellating him.

[DarthNinja]

"Losing control"? Americans lost control of their country the day the Federal Reserve was created.

[Kragar]

Oddly enough a lot of 3rd and 4th generation Americans seem to forget America was build on immigrants from Europe who probably didn't go through any modern version of immigration. It took my co-worker almost 4 years to finally get her Canadian Visa, and she's educated and from the UK and is fluent in one our two official languages!

Everyone coming into Ellis island was inspected. They had to be healthy. If they weren't, they were quarantined. if they didn't get better. they were shipped back. If they were diasbled, they were sent back.

Anarchists were also not allowed in, so there was also political screening going on.

There was also screening for criminals.

http://www.history.com/topics/ellis-island

And today, there are so many people receiving amnesty that there aren't enough resources or time to weed out the criminals, despite living in the digitial age and having faster access to records. We've all heard news reports of the recent rush of illegals crossing into the US with scabies, leprosy, and tuberculosis, and if IIRC, Americans have died as a result of that exposure.

I think things were handled a wee bit more strictly back in the day.

America was built on LEGAL immigration. Controlled. Bringing in people with desired skills and a willingness to work. With no health issues.

Now, with Obama's mass amnesty plans, millions of people will be granted citizenship. There are already tens of millions of citizens here unable to get a job, and now a few more million new workers will want jobs. All this does is expand the number of people living here in poverty, providing competition for low-paying jobs which brings wages down.

[inane]

Jeez you guys are desperate lol.

The article lost me at 'king or president'.

[Mr. Ambien]

Jeez you guys are desperate lol.

The article lost me at 'king or president'.

If someone said you made it past "unilateral", I'd say they were lying.

[Gurn]

"America was built on LEGAL immigration. Controlled. Bringing in people with desired skills and a willingness to work. With no health issues. "

America was built by thousands of treasonous Brits. It is silly for someone in that country to moan about legal immigration, given the nations method of starting up.

[inane]

If someone said you made it past "unilateral", I'd say they were lying.

You sure have a thing for me... let it be.

Also, I don't think fox news knows what a king is.

[Mr. Ambien]

"America was built on LEGAL immigration. Controlled. Bringing in people with desired skills and a willingness to work. With no health issues. "America was built by thousands of treasonous Brits. It is silly for someone in that country to moan about legal immigration, given the nations method of starting up.

If the US was intended to be a country of lawless rebels why a Constitution? Why separation of powers?

Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the ratified US Constitution set forth the government to regulate naturalization. Late in the 1700s it was required to be a resident for 14 years before applying for citizenship. It's clear the US didn't want people coming in willy nilly from its inception. You should learn a little more about US history before you argue it.

[drummer4now]

If the US was intended to be a country of lawless rebels why a Constitution? Why separation of powers?

Article I Section 8 Clause 4 of the ratified US Constitution set forth the government to regulate naturalization. Late in the 1700s it was required to be a resident for 14 years before applying for citizenship. It's clear the US didn't want people coming in willy nilly from its inception. You should learn a little more about US history before you argue it.

What's your take on Obama recently deciding to pardon illegal immigrants?

[Mr. Ambien]

What's your take on Obama recently deciding to pardon illegal immigrants?

Post #1, at the bottom.

[Jaimito]

What's your take on Obama recently deciding to pardon illegal immigrants?

It's not a pardon.

[Bocivus]

Take away your rights as a citizen by not allowing due process, that's ok because it has that wonderful sound of "Patriot Act".

The article conveniently avoids saying the what is really happening because it has an anti-immigrant slant. He's basically giving immigrants who didn't go through the process of going through immigration some measure of protection, and trying to keep families from being split up due to deportation.

Oddly enough a lot of 3rd and 4th generation Americans seem to forget America was build on immigrants from Europe who probably didn't go through any modern version of immigration. It took my co-worker almost 4 years to finally get her Canadian Visa, and she's educated and from the UK and is fluent in one our two official languages!

You might want to get your news from something other than the Fascist errr Fox News.

Right, protecting the illegal aliens that broke the law by coming here illegally. He does not have the authority to do this. Granting special rights to these criminals is a slap in the face to those who came, and are trying to enter the country legally. There is a reason that the Constitution strictly forbids the executive branch to make law and that's to prevent centralized power to one person. The separation of powers was specifically created for this reason.

And the whole "keeping families from being split up" is absurd. Tell that to the parents of the kids who died or are paralyzed from the enterovirus that was introduced by the illegal aliens, not to mention the other diseases that were once eradicated from the country that are now being reintroduced. If you like your tuberculosis, you can keep your tuberculosis.

[freebuddy]

Take away your rights as a citizen by not allowing due process, that's ok because it has that wonderful sound of "Patriot Act".

The article conveniently avoids saying the what is really happening because it has an anti-immigrant slant. He's basically giving immigrants who didn't go through the process of going through immigration some measure of protection, and trying to keep families from being split up due to deportation.

Oddly enough a lot of 3rd and 4th generation Americans seem to forget America was build on immigrants from Europe who probably didn't go through any modern version of immigration. It took my co-worker almost 4 years to finally get her Canadian Visa, and she's educated and from the UK and is fluent in one our two official languages!

You might want to get your news from something other than the Fascist errr Fox News.

Hey! They had more "important" things to do than cover his speech:

Fox Dumps Obama Speech For Interview With Anti-Immigration Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Blog November 21, 2014 4:29 PM EST OLIVER WILLIS

Fox News dropped its coverage of President Obama's speech on immigration in Nevada, switching to an interview with Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is suing the administration over the administration's recently announced immigration actions.

Fox, CNN, and MSNBC all carried the beginning of Obama's speech live. But at 4 p.m. ET, Your World with Neil Cavuto began. After describing the contents of the speech while airing the live video feed of President Obama, Cavuto stated, "as he's talking, I want you to meet the sheriff who's suing" and began to interview Arpaio.

Arpaio announced today that he would be suing the administration, telling a local TV station that, "This is going to open the door. Everybody in Mexico, Central America, thinks they will have a free pass when they come into our country because of what the president is issuing." Arpaio is a prominent birther who was found by state law enforcement agencies to have failed to investigate hundreds of sex crimes and is subject to an independent monitor after a federal judge determined that his office racially profiled Latinos.

CNN and MSNBC both carried the speech to its conclusion.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/21/fox-dumps-obama-speech-for-interview-with-anti/201673

[Mr. Ambien]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-Amnesty_112014.html

Washington, D.C. - Activists with the Project 21 black leadership network are critical of just-announced executive action by President Barack Obama to grant amnesty to non-citizens illegally in the United States.

"What President Obama did is reward those who broke our laws. This will only embitter and endanger the citizenry and legal immigrants who are similarly looking for work, just scraping by and worried about their economic future," said Project 21 Archbishop Council Nedd II of St. Alban's Anglican Church. "God has blessed America with abundance, and I cannot fault those seeking a better life here. But the unregulated surge of people across our borders is problematic, unsustainable and in violation of carefully-crafted rules."

"By himself, and against the protests of congressional leaders, President Obama is giving the illegal alien community absolution for its law-breaking. Obama's action effectively rewards the intentions of these illegals to exploit a broken immigration system and lay claim to the American way of life at the expense of its citizens and legal immigrants who obeyed our laws," said Project 21's Derryck Green, a southern California resident. "Our nation will undoubtedly suffer from further and a likely intensified strain on our infrastructure as well as resources that are already limited in supply due to a poor economic recovery."

Shelby Emmett"What we are now witnessing with Obama's amnesty plan is a complete destruction of our constitutional republic. We no longer seem to live under a system of checks and balances or separation of powers," said Project 21's Shelby Emmett, a lawyer and former congressional staff member who dealt with immigration issues. "We the people apparently have no more say in our representation or our form of government."

Project 21 has issued six "DataReleases" on immigration in recent weeks, covering the following major policy areas:

Jobs: Jobless Black Americans are demographically similar to illegal immigrants and amnesty means they encounter substantially increased head-to-head competition for jobs. Illegal immigrant migration to urban centers exacerbates challenges for black jobseekers. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that illegal immigrants "depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men."

Fairness: Carefully-crafted rules to manage immigration into the United States with an eye toward health, financial sustainability and clean legal records are discarded by mass amnesty, which also is unfair to those who immigrated after waiting in line. Obama-backed immigration policy changes would eliminate the method by which a quarter of all African immigrants, who historically have emigrated legally, are allowed residency in the United States while millions of Latin Americans who arrived illegally are granted amnesty.

Health: Health providers along the U.S-Mexico border are dealing with flu, tuberculosis, chicken pox, scabies and other illnesses brought into the U.S. by illegal aliens. The legal immigration process contains health screening, but the massive influx of Latin American children in 2014 in particular led the Obama Administration to rely on inferior screening processes and a resettlement strategy that dispersed them across the country.

Public schools: Attorney General Eric Holder told public school administrators they have an "obligation to enroll students regardless of immigration status." This influx expands class sizes and stretches school budgets.

Refugees: Designating Latin American illegal aliens as "refugees" from gangs and drug lords to justify an executive action blocking them from deportation would disrupt rules and limits for accepting refugees into the United States and put refugee candidates from other parts of the world at a severe disadvantage.

History: Immigration surges historically have tended to hurt the employment prospects of black Americans.

[Mustapha]

The President is a puppet, he has no power.

Considering how much power Obama apparently has, he sure hasn't gotten very much done.

-Lily Ledbetter

-Mandatory health insurance

-Prevented Mitt Romney from being elected President

That's about all I can really say about Obama, pretty pathetic IMO.

The Koch brothers have way more swing than Obama does, ironically considering many Americans don't even know who they are. They are too busy playing Xbox, going to church, and watching Duck Dynasty.