that wasn't intelligent

Ooooooo

Another president sidestepped a hostile congress with the stroke of a pen.....what's to discuss?

I'll let Obama speak for himself:

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

"There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

--Barack Obama, 2011.

Congress: "i say we bill him"

I think it comes down to a disagreement between two clauses in the Constitution, namely:

" he [the President]shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (Article 2 Section 3)
and
"he [the President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States" (Article 2 Section 2)

Namely, does the right to grant "reprieves and pardons" apply to this case, or is he not "tak(ing) Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

The "reprieves and pardons" clause certainly doesn't apply, Cyrus. I'm not aware of any lawyers who have argued it does (though obviously I might have missed them). That can be used to commute the sentence for a criminal offense, or grant a pardon; it can't be used to create a status of being allowed to be in the United States, which is in the exclusive purview of Congress.

The President gets to decide the time line for implementing the law. Just like previous presidents did when they didn't like them by not spending money that was appropriated to do something.

With an overloaded system, Obama can just reset the priorities on which groups get to be first ones to deport.

"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."

--George W Bush, 2006.

Randomizer,

He does not, if the law specifies a timeline.

But don't take my word for it. See Obama, above.

Leon,

Bush was talking about who should be Secretary of Defense, which really is the President's decision. I'm a little surprised that, if you're looking for a Bush quote involving misuse of executive power, you can't find one that's actually on-point.

He hears you, semck, he reads the forum, and he knows the context. But he's the Walras, and you will give him your +1.

As a legal matter, this seems fairly straightforward. The president will probably lose the inevitable lawsuits on this issue like he has lost on all the other times he's tried to do something blatantly unconstitutional. The recess appointments, for example.

The damage he's just done, however, cannot be cured even when/if he's repudiated in court. These millions of people are going to stay now. No one's going to undo his unilateral amnesty. The office of the presidency continues to gain power far in excess of what the Constitution mandates. Even in defeat on this issue, the powers won't go back to where they were before this, just somewhere in between. The precedent has been set.

We essentially have an elective monarchy now. As long as the policy is popular (or at least can be spun as "the right thing to do") and Congress does not have the will to impeach, any president can do as they please. Obama's already completed the decades-long process of usurping war-making power from Congress. Now the presidency is grabbing similar control in the domestic sphere.

You may like amnesty, but this is indistinguishable from rule by decree. The only true constraint on presidential power will soon be term limits.

"Casey is a Texas girl, just like me."
ABUSE OF POWER

semck, I wish I could put you in a big golden box and drive you around my country to pull you out whenever I see a left-wing crowd and let you speak to them.

Seriously.

Also, America clearly needs a western-European constitutional monarchy to separate more clearly the duties of the executive and the legislative branches of government.
I would humbly like to offer myself as the first King of America, my family as the Royal Family of America and establish such government.
#putredhouseinthewhitehouse

It's about time that Obama actually did a good thing.

"No one's going to undo his unilateral amnesty."

Well, you know, the House could have been proactive on this matter and passed an immigration bill...instead of wasting months voting against the ACA 54 times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Wake me up when Boehner sues Obama for abuse of the War Powers Act. Talk about a spineless House.

I guess I didn't remember that correctly. It's actually:
"Karyn is a West Texas girl, just like me."

redhouse1938:
I +1'd your post by mistake, but I guess it was worth it.

I accidentally thanked you.

"Well, you know, the House could have been proactive on this matter and passed an immigration bill...instead of wasting months voting against the ACA 54 times."

So because Congress doesn't act on an issue, the president is allowed to create the law he wants unilaterally? That's what your saying.

I also don't know how a list of executive orders is supposed to be some knockout blow in your favor. The dispute here is not that the president has issued an executive order. Those are indisputably allowed. The dispute is about the scope and content of the order.

As for war powers, I agree. Congress must be more assertive. But just because it has been derelict in this area that doesn't mean it is somehow legitimate for the presidency to enlarge its powers in others as well.

He's not creating any laws. There is a boatload of legal precedent for the POTUS to prioritize immigration and deportation.

It is fair criticism to point out his previous words, but that doesn't invalidate his legal authority on this matter. Besides, his previous words were intended to mollify a hostile Congress so they could pass immigration reform without it looking like the President was an obstacle.

Clearly Congress was the obstacle. After the GOP's big wins, Boehner couldn't say whether the new House would take up the Senate bill, so Obama acted.

Yeah, it was a big "Fuck you" to the House, and it was the right move to make.

"He's not creating any laws. There is a boatload of legal precedent for the POTUS to prioritize immigration and deportation."

This goes beyond precedent. That's the whole point. Here, he's essentially saying "I won't deport anyone." That's far beyond "I won't deport people brought here as children" or other orders. This isn't declining to enforce the law against a discrete class of people, it's nullifying federal law.

It is the *scale* that matters here. His exercise in prosecutorial discretion is swallowing the rule.

"Clearly Congress was the obstacle."

And Congress has every right to be an obstacle. It Congress doesn't pass something, it isn't the law. How hard is this to understand? Congress isn't some rubber stamp to the president's policies. It is a coequal branch of government. If it doesn't want to do something then the president cannot legitimately do a run around and still get his way. This is a vital component to limited government.

"This goes beyond precedent. That's the whole point. Here, he's essentially saying 'I won't deport anyone.'"

That's your opinion. I guess we get to let the SCOTUS sort it out. I can't wait for Boehner to be shot down.

"It is the *scale* that matters here. His exercise in prosecutorial discretion is swallowing the rule."

Scale means nothing. If it's legal, it's legal. End of story. Scale only draws attention to it. The GOP just needed to...wanted to...make Obama into a bigger bugaboo than he already is to them.

Funny thing is, Obama is a lame duck. I guess that will suit the GOP just fine. The Do Nothing House can continue their tactics of whining and inaction and find someone else to blame.

So, no. The President isn't doing a run around. He's lawfully exercising his authority. Suck it, GOP.

Does anyone know what his specific legal basis for issuing the order is? Not the general basis upon which have the power to issue executive orders in general, but the specific legislative foundation upon which he's built this order? If Congress was dumb enough to write legislation that was broad enough and gave him enough latitude to do this, then it can't very well complain about the legality of it -- Obama's prior comments to the contrary (which were made to students at Bell Middle School, perhaps?) notwithstanding -- even if it's entirely reasonable for them complain about the political and policy unpalatability of it. If existing law actually doesn't allow for this, then it's a clear abuse of power and indeed is rule by decree. In either case, it's entirely within Congress' purview to withhold funding to enforce the order. But I haven't seen or heard anyone on either side cite anything specific about what the legal foundation of the order is or about why that legal foundation is of questionable strength. If I were less occupied with other matters (or perhaps just less lazy), I would do the research myself. But of course, I prefer to farm that work out to the rest of the community. Anyone interested?

You're fractally wrong on "scale means nothing." If the statute says people in the country illegally have to be deported and Obama says he will deport *no one* rather than, say, instructing federal agencies to not deport pregnant women or college students, that's a very different scenario. As I said before, he's made an exception that swallows the rule. He's nullifying federal law.

But since you see this only in partisan terms there doesn't seem to be much use discussing it with you. As long as your guy wins on a policy you agree with it doesn't matter what damage is done to the constitutional order. This is a dangerous way of thinking, but it appears that this is new normal. What a shame.

"As long as your guy wins on a policy you agree with it doesn't matter what damage is done to the constitutional order. This is a dangerous way of thinking, but it appears that this is new normal."
I agree on the dangerous way of thinking part, but is it the new normal? I wonder if it isn't just a very old normal that has ebbed and flowed over time, doing a bit more flowing now than ebbing.