Jeff,

I've thought for a long while now that Congress urgently needed to get their stuff together and face down the Presidency in a serious way, united. Obama's action makes it impossible for them to do anything else. That's disappointing in a sense, because it *would* be nice if Congress could actually get needed policy reforms done. In fact, it's fairly urgent. That has no chance now, and I absolutely blame Obama for that. No President could do this and expect anything other than total war from Congress, which is indeed practically Congress's moral duty in such a case, as it is responsible for protecting its prerogatives in our Constitutional system.

semck83,

Why do the President's announced and legal actions on immigration enforcement make it impossible for Congress to do anything else about immigration laws? If anything, they should be more motivated now to take action, and sooner than later!

What "total war" is to be expected? Why do congressional Republican leaders think they need to fight Obama in court? Congress has the power to write and change laws. Obama has taken lawful actions under the scope of his authority.

Congress now has two choices:
1) They can validate his actions by passing an immigration reform bill which includes his actions as legitimate; or
2) They can repudiate his actions by passing an immigration reform bill which explicitly makes his actions illegal.

The GOP has egg all over its face because they know #2 is IMPOSSIBLE. They have to pass immigration reform, and Obama's actions will be vindicated. That's what this is really about. The GOP could have acted sooner. Obama and the Democrats gave them plenty of time and opportunity to do so.

I think the GOP has to raise the possibility of unconstitutionality because they know it is a fight they will lose, so they have to make some kind of political gains from it.

semck83: See my last post. Obama wants Congress to act. This isn't an issue of "prerogatives in our Constitutional system."

It amazes me how leftists can so enthusiastically support granting the executive broad-ranging powers, and complain about other branches of government wanting to curtail that expansion of power, so soon after the Bush administration. I guess it's okay if a Democrat does it? (I've heard this argument point-blank before...)

What new powers were granted? None.

PE - Democrats are not leftists at this point, and vice versa (in general).

Remember when signing statements and warrant-less wiretapping were mortal threats to the republic?

Democrats still have this triumphalist outlook on the future. I really think they're just completely sure that there will never be a Republican president again, so it's fine to expand presidential power to whatever extent is needed to enact a progressive agenda.

Never mind that Obama's as unpopular now as Bush was at this point in his term, or that Hillary is already starting to show she still has a glass jaw, or that they just handily lost the midterm elections. Hell, never mind the existing legal and constitutional legal order. We'll have our guy or gal in office indefinitely, so who cares what mere procedural abuses happen? All the better to screw the Republicans with their pants on, because that's all that really matters. It's not like centralizing political power in one officeholder has ever lead to tyranny in the past. And it certainly can never happen so long as the president has a D after his or her name.

"2) They can repudiate his actions by passing an immigration reform bill which explicitly makes his actions illegal.

The GOP has egg all over its face because they know #2 is IMPOSSIBLE."

Leaving aside the point that Congress need pass no new law because this act abuses the president's power of discretion, this scenario means they really have no choice. It's mafia tactics. You can either do what I want you to do or I'll do what I want anyway. The fact that all you can take is partisan joy as the our constitutional order is gnawed away saddens me.

GOP has egg all over it's face? Really?

Because the very recent election completely and utterly refutes that idiotic notion . Apparently, Obama has egg all over his face, because we knew *before* the election he would do this, and his party was *destroyed* in the polls. i.e. The American people are on the side of the Republicans.

Will the left-wing head-in-the-sand idioicy ever cease?

And no...I'm not saying you are a left-winger Invi - put if you are thinking the Republicans have egg all over your face, you are just woefully uninformed.

I was quoting Jeff Kuta. Please read more carefully.

"Democrats still have this triumphalist outlook on the future. I really think they're just completely sure that there will never be a Republican president again..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Remember when Newt Gingrich crowed about a "permanent majority" in Congress...and Republicans BELIEVED HIM? LOL.

Democrats (and I am not one) don't believe for a minute that there will never be another Republican POTUS, but they do think that the Republican brand is damaged goods and possibly beyond recovery. Gerrymandering is the only thing that saved the GOP.

Sure, Congress doesn't have to pass any new laws, but the political reality for the GOP is that the longer they wait, the worse it gets for them. Screw them and their obstructionist brinksmanship. They had a chance and blew it.

They gambled that they could take all the credit passing an immigration bill while controlling both sides of Congress, and Obama is rightfully executing his prerogatives that just happen to steal some of their thunder.

Do you hear Democrats squealing about the election loss? No.
Do you hear Republicans squealing about a lawful executive order? Yes.
Who are the whiners here? Who was embarrassed in public? Yep, Republicans.

It has zero to do with constitutionality, and everything to do with politics.

"Democrats (and I am not one) don't believe for a minute that there will never be another Republican POTUS, but they do think that the Republican brand is damaged goods and possibly beyond recovery. Gerrymandering is the only thing that saved the GOP."

You're not a Democrat? Sure...

As for your point, it's self-contradictory. Democrats don't believe that there will be no more GOP presidents, but at the same time thing the party's brand is beyond recovery? These things cannot really fit together.

With regards to gerrymandering, that is not a sin unique to the Republican party. Look at Illinois, where the Democratic legislature made as ludicrous a map as anywhere in the country to minimize how many seats the GOP could win. See also California, where both parties are in cahoots to protect incumbents with gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is just what happens when you let state legislatures draw district boundaries. We should have non-partisan committees do it instead. The GOP was able to take advantage of this inherent flaw in our system because they actually gave a rat's ass about winning state houses in 2010.

"Sure, Congress doesn't have to pass any new laws, but the political reality for the GOP is that the longer they wait, the worse it gets for them. Screw them and their obstructionist brinksmanship. They had a chance and blew it."

You may be right about the political reality. However, that doesn't make the president's actions legitimate. There is no timer that, once the limit runs, the presidency suddenly levels up and can alter existing laws on its own initiative.


"Do you hear Democrats squealing about the election loss? No.
Do you hear Republicans squealing about a lawful executive order? Yes.
Who are the whiners here? Who was embarrassed in public? Yep, Republicans.

It has zero to do with constitutionality, and everything to do with politics."

I actually do hear complaints about the election loss. How could there not be? The party lost the Maryland governor's mansion, for heaven's sake. It seems clear to me that the order is not lawful, and at best the we have to say it's an open question on whether it is.

This has at least as much to do with constitutionality as with politics. The president is giving legal status and work permits to five million people the law as written says cannot have either. Again, it saddens me that all you can see in this is partisan gain. Even if the policy is a fantastic idea only a heartless monster could oppose on its merits, the means with which the president is enacting it does violence to our notion of separation of powers.

Jeff,

"The GOP has egg all over its face because they know #2 is IMPOSSIBLE."

It's impossible because Obama would veto the bill, and the modern Democratic Congressional delegation is too lost to wake up and defend its own power against an executive that is rendering it, no less than Republicans, a mere formality.

But no, they can't do #1 now, because that would validate this as a good way to behave for future Presidents. It is up to the Congress first to find a draconian punishment for this behavior. Only then, at this point, can they seriously consider taking up immigration reform. Anything less would be something of an abdication, in my opinion.

draconian punishment? Like having it struck down by the supreme court like other executive overreaches (if it was an overreach)

I mean does the fact you don't like this president make his actions more punishable than those by Washington, Lincoln and FDR?

"You're not a Democrat? Sure..."

Registered Green.

csb: When I moved to California, I changed from American Independent (I was a dumb high school student and didn't know how silly they were then...Ooh! I'm so independent!) to Decline to State which wasn't an option for me before. Later, California passed their first open primary law which I was happy to vote for. When Bill Bradley ran for POTUS in 2000, I started canvasing for him. However, the Dems and Reps decided that votes cast for candidates of a different party would not be officially counted. This pissed me off because now I couldn't officially vote for Bradley. I registered Democrat for the primary, and as soon as it was over, registered Green to help them maintain ballot access by virtue of number of registered voters.
/csb

"See also California, where both parties are in cahoots to protect incumbents with gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is just what happens when you let state legislatures draw district boundaries. We should have non-partisan committees do it instead."

Not true...any more. In 2008, Californians passed a ballot proposition creating the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. This proposition passed precisely because Californians were annoyed that incumbents were in cahoots with each other. This redistricting process was a success and created more districts which were contested.

In 2010, Californians passed a "Top Two" primary system, which has changed the political landscape even more. This is what brought about true supermajorities in the CA Assembly and Senate from 2012 to 2014.

"Again, it saddens me that all you can see in this is partisan gain."

But, I don't. What's really going on is the Republicans only seeing a partisan loss, and they are trying to raise the specter of unconstitutionality to limit this political loss. It will all be borne out in time. That's the GOP's problem. They are on the wrong side of history.

SC,

It might be struck down by the Supreme Court, but not necessarily. That's a lot harder than people seem to think, even for genuine missteps. First of all, the Supreme Court has a tradition of not getting involved in fights between Congress and the President for any but the most extreme cases. Second, you'd have to find somebody with standing to bring this case, and it's not completely clear who that would be (Congress is probably as good a guess as anybody, but see above). Third, and related once again to one, a Supreme Court giving a President an edict about how to do his job would be almost as troubling as the President not doing his job (which is part of why they'd be extremely hesitant to take the case).

So, that might be tried, but it's not clear it will work even if the President is wrong. And again, it's not clear they'd win: as I said before, I think this is very important ground for Congress to stake out, but it's a gray area legally. The issue is, you can't have Congress ceding all the gray areas or you have a terrifically powerful President, and one who is almost certainly violating the Constitution. (Think about Bush and some of the foreign policy stuff. He had colorable legal arguments for almost everything he did, but that doesn't mean it was a great idea for Congress to lie down and let it happen).

So, no, I was referring more to political consequences of the traditional kind: power-of-the-purse punishments, nominations, etc.

@Jeff,

It's possible to be on the right and wrong side of history at once. I tend to agree with most aspects of the *policy* of what Obama did; but this was *no* way to do it. Process is important. Congress absolutely should, eventually, enact a law containing this, but it became much more complicated to do it. Obama was on the wrong side of history in his huge power grab, and I only hope it goes down as an isolated incident (much like Andrew Jackson's flouting of the Supreme Court, which of course in fairness was more black and white wrong).

semck83:
"but it became much more complicated to do it"
What? Where did you get that notion. Congress has spent years ignoring the issue, so now that the President has taken action (using prior Congressional legislation, mind you), Congress will be more motivated to work on a new immigration bill. They certainly would have needed bipartisan support without Obama's deferred action, so nothing has changed in that respect.

"Not true...any more. In 2008, Californians passed a ballot proposition creating the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. This proposition passed precisely because Californians were annoyed that incumbents were in cahoots with each other. This redistricting process was a success and created more districts which were contested."

Um... you conveniently neglect to mention that two of the four "non-partisan" members of the commission were, in fact, Democratic party operatives and that the commission produced districts which gave Democrats a supermajority in 2010. All the redistricting commission (and Prop 14) have produced are dozens of districts with two Democrats or two Republicans competing in the general election... which is about as much choice as people had in the old Soviet Union.

"In 2010, Californians passed a "Top Two" primary system, which has changed the political landscape even more. This is what brought about true supermajorities in the CA Assembly and Senate from 2012 to 2014."

It also knocked the Green Party (and all third parties, for that matter) off the general election ballot. I know the Libertarian Party has had to spend a lot of time, effort, and money to retain ballot access to field candidates in the primaries - I can only imagine the Green Party has probably been de-certified at this point. If you're excited by Prop 14 and a Green, you're very naive.

@Tolstoy:
Wrong. But you go ahead and believe whatever conspiracies your heart desires.
http://www.propublica.org/article/statement-from-california-citizens-redistricting-commission-responding-to-o

At any rate, the CCRC is much better than what they had before. The first election after redistricting was bound to undo decades of partisanship which disproportionately protected Republican seats. California is very, very liberal and now the state legislature more closely represents that. 2012 was also a big year for Democrats nationally, so that wave was strong. 2014 swung things back toward the GOP as would be expected.

There are certainly better voting methods out there than "Top Two" and I support them, but I think it's better than our old primary system. There are a handful of Dem v Dem or Rep v Rep districts each cycle, and that's just fine by me. Third parties just need to find the right districts and fight to get out of the primary, and they'd stand a better chance in the general election. If the choice were Dem v Green or Rep v Libertarian, I'd think the third party would have a strong shot. I understand the issues that come with not having "your candidate" in the general election, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. We'll get there eventually.

Perhaps this is just an Australian's perspective, but Obama seems to suddenly be in the headlines all over the place.
He introduced an arrangement with China to cut carbon emissions which undermined the current Australian government (which cut out a carbon tax we had here), and then while over here complained about our environmental record without letting the government know, and now this bold immigration bill.

Is this a skewed Australian perspective, or is he taking on more controversial issues all of a sudden?
(And no judgement on whether he's right or wrong by the way, I'm just wondering whether others see him as taking on more controversy)

I suspect he will take on more controversial measures because he is now a "lame duck." There are no more general elections for the remainder of his presidency, so he doesn't have to consider the vagaries of the electorate as much when he makes decisions. This happens to all presidents to varying degrees, but I suspect Obama will appear to be more controversial than some. His agenda has been frustrated by Congress so he will use executive actions, like he just did on immigration, which will delight some and infuriate others.

It ought to infuriate everyone. Just because a president is not going to face the electorate again does not mean he can suddenly run roughshod over the laws.

But he will, because the fight's lost and we don't really have limited government any more. And no one seems to care. The worst the new Congress may do is censure him, which he'll ignore. For the rest of his term this man will do everything he can to advance policies he agrees with, legality and tradition be damned.

Invictus, the president not using coercive authority to abbreviate people's right to free travel is not a violation of limited government. There's ten million other things that Obama and the Republicans have done to live up to that statement, but punishing slightly fewer people because of where they were born is not a violation of the small government ideal.

(ignoring the fact that this is not clearly a violation of the law nor a particularly noteworthy violation of political tradition).

Right to free travel? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "travel."

He's given five million people here illegally work permits and "temporary" legal status. This is an exercise in prosecutorial discretion which swallows the rule. This isn't a limited exercise in discretion which, say, tells government agencies not to deport college students or people brought here as children. It's a general amnesty by the back door, a general amnesty Congress has made clear it will not pass. He's de facto making new law by decree.

As I said, people don't care. Maybe amnesty is a good idea. We certainly won't ever *actually* deport the millions of people here illegally. But the underlying policy is irrelevant. He's set a precedent which massively expands executive power. Even if he eventually loses in court the ratchet has moved further along in the direction of expansive presidential authority.

Obama is no tyrant and none of his immediate successors will be, but concentrating power in one person like this is no way to preserve liberty. Acting like this is a dangerous way to run a republic, as Obama seemed to acknowledge even earlier this year. But it looks like for most people the ends justify the means. I just hope we keep on electing basically good people as president. That'll be all protecting us from tyranny if the office of the president is allowed to gather more and more power like this.

This batch of Federalist Society lawyers seem to generally think that the action was legal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/federalist-society-obama-immigration_n_6182350.html

You ask what this has to do with free travel, but then bring up the whole idea of needing a permit to work. That kind of "your papers please" approach is a much bigger threat to small government or free society than this action by Obama. Current US law limits the right to freely travel to (and I guess I should expand, to live and to work in) the United States. Obama is slightly reducing the weight of that law. It is a good thing.

ckroberts, I can appreciate your urge for liberty, but I do think you're being rather naive in welcoming it at the hand of an autocratic executive. History has very unpleasant things to say about how liberty fares under those circumstances, even if the growth of power comes while granting it.

I mostly agree with you about the substance of his actions, but I think everyone should be troubled by the circumstances.

Semck, I totally understand concern about autocratic executives. But thinking this particular action is a noteworthy example of that seems deeply misguided. Even though it has the potential to be abused, I think it would be generally a good thing if every president would not make it a priority to enforce laws that they believed to be harmful to the rights and liberties of people living in America.