SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (491128)6/15/2012 6:07:25 PM
From: Bearcatbob4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793778
 
Once again his most reliable base voters - black Americans - get screwed as the price of Obama buying votes.

Bob



To: LindyBill who wrote (491128)6/15/2012 6:07:25 PM
From: Bearcatbob  Respond to of 793778
 
Duplicate



To: LindyBill who wrote (491128)6/16/2012 3:07:08 AM
From: Nadine Carroll9 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793778
 
Face it. Obama has us by the "short hairs" on this Dream act move. It's like being in favor of baby seals being killed. We have been able to stop it at the Congressional level, but when Obama singles it out by Presidential order and put it in force, we look like Simon Legree coming out against it.

Not necessarily. I think it has occurred to the unemployed youth of America, which includes lots of black youth, that Obama just legalized millions of their competition -- for as we can point out, it's easy to use the 18 year old who came here as a baby as the poster child for amnesty. But what's to stop every 30 year old from claiming he came here 15 years ago as a 15 year old, instead of last week? Nothing. He's undocumented, remember? So you can't ask for documents. So in effect, this is a general amnesty. I think we can say, "Obama thinks the private sector is just fine if none of you have a job." We can say it to everybody under 30, and we can say it to blacks, who don't do well in the labor market when they have to compete against Mexicans.



To: LindyBill who wrote (491128)6/16/2012 1:44:03 PM
From: KLP7 Recommendations  Respond to of 793778
 
Obama's 'executive overreach' ~~~ Rick Moran

Bush administration counsel John Yoo - who knows a thing or two about stretching executive power - has an excellent analysis in NRO responding to the president's reasoning on the legality of his DREAM Act implementation by fiat.

There are two exceptions, neither of which applies here. The first is that "the Laws" includes the Constitution. The president can and should refuse to execute congressional statutes that violate the Constitution, because the Constitution is the highest form of law. We in the Bush administration argued that the president could refuse to execute laws that infringed on the executive's constitutional powers, particularly when it came to national security - otherwise, a Congress that had a different view of foreign policy could order the military to refuse to carry out the president's orders as Commander-in-Chief, for example. When presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR said that they would not enforce a law, they did so when the law violated their executive powers under the Constitution or the individual rights of citizens.

The president's right to refuse to enforce unconstitutional legislation, of course, does not apply here. No one can claim with a straight face that the immigration laws here violate the Constitution.

The second exception is prosecutorial discretion, which is the idea that because of limited resources the executive cannot pursue every violation of federal law. The Justice Department must choose priorities and prosecute cases that are the most important, have the greatest impact, deter the most, and so on. But prosecutorial discretion is not being used in good faith here: A president cannot claim discretion honestly to say that he will not enforce an entire law - especially where, as here, the executive branch is enforcing the rest of immigration law.

Imagine the precedent this claim would create. President Romney could lower tax rates simply by saying he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax. He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it.

NRO editors augment Yoo's "prosecutorial discretion" argument:

The federal executive branch, like a local district attorney or a traffic cop, has some discretion about how, when, and whether to prosecute certain violations of the law. Not every driver exceeding the speed limit by 4 mph will receive a ticket, and not every teenager caught shoplifting will face a criminal indictment. Police and prosecutors are granted some leeway in these matters - but they cannot change the speed limit or legalize theft. That requires an act of the legislature. By making the liberal use of this discretion mandatory, the Obama administration is in effect writing new law rather than enforcing existing law.

There is no doubt that Obama's actions, at best, slide right up against the outside of the envelope as far as legality is concerned. If you include political pandering and bad faith in the mix, you are faced with an outrageous act of defiance by the executive branch. Rep. King of Iowa says he plans to sue the president in federal court over this end run around congress. He is not likely to win. Historically, federal courts have stayed out of these spitting matches between congress and the executive. That's because they usually work themselves out at the ballot box.

And that's where this debate will end up - as it rightly should; as an issue in the presidential campaign. Those calling for impeachment are suckers. By the time the House got organized it would be late summer and if the Republicans are stupid enough to stage an impeachment debate in the middle of a presidential campaign, they deserve whatever they would get from an electorate that would see the proceedings as purely partisan politics.

Better to allow the voters to have their way with Obama at the ballot box than in the dock of doomed impeachment trial.

Page Printed from: americanthinker.com at June 16, 2012 - 12:40:29 PM CDT