Obama’s immigration plan ...

"President Obama’s expected action lifting the threat of deportation from millions of undocumented immigrants, which could come as early as this week, will expand the authority of the executive branch into murky, uncharted territory.

The path is built on the long-accepted principle, going at least as far back as the 1970s, that any administration should have wide discretion over how it deals with those who are in this country illegally. Obama, however, is poised to take that leeway significantly farther than before.

The move is certain to bring criticism that Obama has gone too far — ignoring the intent of Congress in passing the nation’s immigration statutes and violating the constitutional requirement that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”"  Washpost

------------------------

Obama said the other day that he is not an emperor, but he acts as though he wishes that he were such.  We are often reminded that he was a constitutional law teacher of some sort but did he specialize in constitutional law because he likes the US system of government or because he sought ways to overcome it?

IMO the Republican congress will have little choice but to seek to stop him if he extends what amounts to amnesty to five million alien parents of US citizen offspring, who are themselves US citizens because of the generosity of the birthright grant of citizenship provisions of the US Constitution.

What form would congressional resistance take?  IMO someone will sue Obama in the federal courts for usurpation of power and neglect of the duties of his oath in that he is sworn to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  There is existing law that applies.

The key question then would be if the parties making the suit have "standing" to bring the matter to the courts, that is, would they be the agrieved party?

If the plaintiffs are thought to have standing then the process will begin to drive a massive crisis of a kind not seen since Watergate.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-potential-immigration-plan-could-enter-uncharted-territory/2014/11/17/3e5be738-6dde-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html

Related articles

Repeal The Constitution

Does Obama Immigration Policy Violate Article 1 Of The Constitution?

Comments

[Tyler]

The President has taken a legal slight of hand (prosecutorial discretion) and made law out of it. Contra WashPosts idiotic assertion that inventing your own law is the same as "sweeping authority" (assertion fallacy), Congress makes the law and the President enforces it.

Oh well. When the next R prez decides to ignore provisions of the tax code Im sure the Left's screams will be long and loud. They are opening Pandora's box and will rend this country in the name of their insane egalitarian crusade.

[Edward Amame]

If/when Obama does what he's threatening to do, the tail that wags the GOP dog will want to shut down the gov't. (The same tail that causes Boener to refuse to allow a floor vote on the Senate immigration bill passed last year.) 2016 GOP pres candidates can run on how fast they'll rescind the exec action. Dem candidates can do the opposite. A win-win for the DC circus.

[GulfCoastPirate]

Colonel,

I'm surprised you aren't aware that both Reagan and Bush I issued the exact same executive orders dealing with immigration in their presidencies. In both of those cases they essentially gave amnesty to existing aliens of those time periods. Nothing Obama intends to do is new nor does it make him an emperor.

http://nypost.com/2014/11/18/white-house-cites-reagan-bush-in-defense-of-immigration-order/

http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive-orders-2014-11

There are plenty more stories out there for those who care to educate themselves on the issue.

Emperor??? - ridiculous.

[r whitman]

Regardless of the political effects of "regularization" which will probably be short lived, there will be some odd economic and social effects. 70% of those affected live in California and Texas. Bank deposits will increase with the money coming out of the mattresses. Used car sales and sales of small homes will increase. The lines at the State Of Texas Drivers License Bureau will get even longer than they are now. Community college registrations will increase as well as private English language lessons.

Many of these people are employed as cooks, nannies, gardeners and household help in rich Republican districts. As soon as they get legalized they will be asking for a raise in pay. The threat of informing "la migra" will no longer be useful by employers in holding down wages.

We can expect traffic jams at the Mexican border every Christmas as they will be able to go home to visit family and return legally.

[shege]

As I read it, the President will use his constitutional power to select which cases his administration prosecutes. I don't think this is making new law, as Tyler seems to believe, but rather choosing to ignore existing law.

Either way, I'd love to see this go to Court. Since the beginning Presidents have been usurping the powers of Congress, often with the complicity of those in Congress. Let's get this whole mess sorted out, and make sure it applies in the future to Presidents of all political stripes.

[tv]

Defund the DHS.
Congress can defund anything it wants - including Air Force One.
But what are the Republicans actually going to do?
Nothing.
Republicans and Democrats are basically the same cat, with different spots.
The difference is that the Republicans don't dislike America.

[turcopolier]

GCP

No. You don't understand. I oppose the extent of the the present power of the presidency and I don't care which party the president comes from. I would have been happy to see have seen any of the recent presidents have their ears pinned back over usurpation of power. pl

[turcopolier]

shege

"...to select which cases his administration prosecutes." The government has an absolute power to decide to prosecute or not, but it ids also true that it is a violation of precedent for the government to engage in "selective prosecution." pl

[shege]

r whitman: so the overall economy will improve in the border states. Sounds like a good thing to me.

[anna-marina]

It is surprising to read about some allegedly fundamental differences between DEMs and GOPers. Aren't they are bought and fed by the same puppeteers?

[shege]

... I oppose the extent of the the present power of the presidency and I don't care which party the president comes from...

PL, another thing we agree on! Let's not make this a habit, or we'll both lose street cred with our respective sides!

:-)

[dilbert dogbert]

MMMM? Emancipation Proclamation? Wasn't that a executive order?

[turcopolier]

DD

That does not mean it was a good idea constitutionally. pl

[Fred]

r whitman,

"As soon as they get legalized they will be asking for a raise in pay."
There are plenty more where they came from who'll be willing to work for that lower wage.

[Tyler]

Refusing to enforce existing law is the same as making new law. Arguing otherwise is sophistry.

Good luck when the next Republican President decides taxes are too high and a obstinate opposition isnt going to stop him from lowering them. Or that the Clean Air Act gets the same treatment as the INA.

Or the Civil Rights Act. Or the Voting Rights Act.

Yeah. Glad my mile and a half is at 10:13 and my magazine exchange on an AK is around 4 seconds from click to rounds on target. We are entering uncharted territory here, boys and girls.

[Tyler]

Are you from isteve? Theres another ponce there with the same ridiculous syntax.

The Emancipation Proclamation is the equivalent of us outlawing Sharia law in Afghanistan. Bad precedent?

[curtis]

And no one knows, at this point, what it is, exactly, Mr. Obama will actually do. Total overreaction to at what is, at best, propaganda of a political sort.

[Bill H]

I always enjoy the defense of Democratic presidential action which boils down to "Republican presidents did it first." I have to chuckle at Democrats claiming, now, that Democrats are good because they act like Republicans.

[crf]

What about not investigating or prosecuting torture?
Here, there seems to be a bipartisan agreement to look aside.

[jonst]

I would push back GCP, and say, the actions by Reagan and Bush I were not of the same nature as the Emperor's proposed actions. Here is a taste of the push back argument. Not saying it is a perfect argument...saying, it should be considered before we begin to have the 'its just like GOP presidents did' spoon fed us.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392887/obamas-unprecedented-amnesty-mark-krikorian

[Edward Amame]

Tyler

Congress by law gives the exec broad power to set immigration enforcement priorities with regard to deploying the limited resources it grants him. And it gives the exec the the power to temporarily shield people from deportation. As others have noted above, Reagan and both Bushes (Clinton too?) used these powers. Now that Obama seems prepared to use it in the same way they did, we suddenly must decide (a) if this sets a precedent ((b) if the law actually grants the same wide discretion in other areas, and (c) and what kind of polish to use on his emperor's crown. The BS never ceases in the age of cable tv.

[Edward Amame]

Col Lang

What usurpation and why the sudden outcry now? A lot of legal eagles say that Congress granted him the power that Reagan, the Bushes (and Clinton too?) all employed.

[Fred]

DD,

You forgot FDR's order to intern the American citizens of Japanese descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

[r whitman]

Bill H: I am agnostic to the political ramifications of illegal immigration, but in my 60+ years of experience with Mexican and Central American illegals I have noticed that almost all of the employers of these people are Conservatives and Republicans. Unlike many people who comment on this blog with the exception of Tyler, I actually know a number of ex-illegals.

[William R. Cumming]

GCP! Agree!

LEAK: The Executive action will address the 3.8 million illegal residents of the USA whose children are US citizens and the illegal resident children of US citizens. The President will argue opposition to the decision is anti-family!