ckroberts,

What you're saying is extremely dangerous. I think we both know that Obama's action and motivation goes beyond "not mak[ing] it a priority" to enforce a particular law. He intends not to enforce its provisions, not because of priorities, but because he disagrees with them entirely in these applications. Once a President takes that upon himself for however noble a reason, the rule of law is gone.

Emancipation Proclamation, bitches.

The Emancipation Proclamation isn't comparable at all. That was authorized by the president's authority as commander-in-chief to free slaves as a war measure to defeat the rebellious southern states. What Obama did was an exercise (abuse) of prosecutorial discretion under federal immigration law. Totally different things.

The only reason to conflate them is to paint opponents of Obama's actions as racists. It's a low blow and totally uncalled for.

semck83: Obama does agree with the law. He's enforcing the law more vigorously than before and using all the funding Congress has allowed to do so. Congress has not provided enough funding to deport en masse. All he's doing is redircting the enforcement to a framework which both makes more sense and is largely taken from Congressional legislation.

Whatever helps you sleep, JECE.

And the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free slaves in states that weren't in rebellion or were occupied. The 13th amendment freed the slaves.

That snarky belittling of the Emancipation Proclamation always bothers me. The legal status of slaves in the rebellious areas changed *instantly*. While the proclamation couldn't be enforced in areas still under Confederate control, it meant that all slaves in newly recaptured territories would be freed. At the time, that was basically the whole Confederacy besides Tennessee and New Orleans. The Thirteenth Amendment was a way to finish the job, since putting the Emancipation Proclamation into practice had ended slavery in virtually all of the South.

I'm not sure how it was snarky or belittling. The Emancipation Proclamation did make freeing slaves a goal of the war. And yes, it did free slaves in rebellious states, but the Union still had to conquer those territories to put it into effect. It changed their legal status to a degree but didn't offer citizenship which came with the 14th amendment. How is it snarky to point out that it didn't free slaves in Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Tennessee, or Southern Louisiana?

Leaving aside quibbles about the relative importance of the EP, perhaps the relevant point is *why* the slaves in the non-rebellious states were not freed: as Invictus pointed out, Lincoln freed the slaves due to the war, in his capacity of Commander in Chief; there was no war in, e.g., Kentucky, and so he had no Constitutional basis for an action there (and took none).

"How is it snarky to point out that it didn't free slaves in Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Tennessee, or Southern Louisiana?"

Because it's ludicrous to think that slavery could have endured after all the slaves in those other states were free. The proclamation didn't free all slaves immediately, but it meant slavery was over if the Union won the war. The institution simply couldn't have endured only in the border states. By issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln de facto destroyed slavery's future. Pointing out that *all* enslaved people weren't directly covered by it misses the point entirely.

semck83:
Don't take it from me. Take it from a former a former head of the Office of Legal Counsel:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/11/anyone_who_thinks_the_legal_arguments_behind_obama_s_immigration_order_are.single.html

I don't like a lot of stuff Obama has done and didn't support him in the 2008 primaries, but there is nothing here. Republican's favorite scandals are those which don't exist: Bengazi, IRS, etc. This one isn't any different.

@ Invictus

Okay, I see your point about the significance of the document. It also seems moot, since as you said, Lincoln was acting as Commander-in-Chief.

Here's an interesting article on all this by a professor at Yale Law School. He's the first top-flight legal academic I've seen to explicitly say Obama could reasonably be impeached for this action (although he also -- very correctly -- urges that that step not be taken).

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20141124-peter-h.-schuck-yes-congress-can-impeach-obama.ece

JECE,

You might want to write a letter to explain to Obama that he did not just "take an action to change the law," but merely enforced it better. He seems confused on that point.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Obama-Puzzled-By-Illegal-Hecklers-I-Just-Took-An-Action-To-Change-The-Law