The king has been overruled

[Bernard_Fokke]

It's about time he learned what his job is and how to really do it.

****************
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words saying he was claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/

 

[Arkady]

It's about time he learned what his job is and how to really do it.

****************
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words saying he was claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/

It'll be interesting to see how this is handled as it goes up through the Supreme Court. I think it's good that we'll be getting some clear precedent on the question, since that can guide these matters in the future. I'm actually in favor of reining in the presidency in this way. Although our current president is fairly good and our current Congress is a smoking dumpster fire, I think in the long term the country will be better off if we shift more power towards the Congress. For my fellow liberals who disagree, just picture how this same concept could be abused by a Republican president who didn't like the laws. For example, picture that Congress passes some laws that require power generators to buy carbon credits to offset their pollution. And picture that a Republican who opposed that idea simply uses his discretion to refuse to enforce those provisions, such that power generators can continue to pollute without buying the credits. That destroys the checks-and-balances system. Although some reasonable discretion in where to allocate enforcement resources is necessary for our system to work, if that's taken to the extreme of actually negating the impact of a law, then it's taken too far.

 

[UPNYA2]

It'll be interesting to see how this is handled as it goes up through the Supreme Court. I think it's good that we'll be getting some clear precedent on the question, since that can guide these matters in the future. I'm actually in favor of reining in the presidency in this way. Although our current president is fairly good and our current Congress is a smoking dumpster fire, I think in the long term the country will be better off if we shift more power towards the Congress. For my fellow liberals who disagree, just picture how this same concept could be abused by a Republican president who didn't like the laws. For example, picture that Congress passes some laws that require power generators to buy carbon credits to offset their pollution. And picture that a Republican who opposed that idea simply uses his discretion to refuse to enforce those provisions, such that power generators can continue to pollute without buying the credits. That destroys the checks-and-balances system. Although some reasonable discretion in where to allocate enforcement resources is necessary for our system to work, if that's taken to the extreme of actually negating the impact of a law, then it's taken too far.

You state, "I think in the long term the country will be better off if we shift more power towards the Congress.", but while this may very well be true it is also redundant. See, as the article pointed out, in "President Obama’s own words" he was claiming powers to “change the law”. That is a power that was never granted to a President. The power to create laws and change has always been that of the Congress.

It sounds silly to say now that we would be better off to "shift more power towards the Congress.", when it is and has always been, totally the power of Congress. To now shift more power to Congress means that at some point someone took more power from Congress. How, when and why did that happen and no one notice until now?

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

To now shift more power to Congress means that at some point someone took more power from Congress. How, when and why did that happen and no one notice until now?

It's as if you have never HEARD of 'the imperial Presidency'. People have been talking about this for more than half a century.......

 

[IndependentinWis]

It's about time he learned what his job is and how to really do it.

****************
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words saying he was claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/

You do realize that Obama has still used far fewer executive actions than Bush or Clinton. Why did you never call them kings? It is totally stupid what you suggest.

 

[Arkady]

You state, "I think in the long term the country will be better off if we shift more power towards the Congress.", but while this may very well be true it is also redundant. See, as the article pointed out, in "President Obama’s own words" he was claiming powers to “change the law”. That is a power that was never granted to a President. The power to create laws and change has always been that of the Congress.

It sounds silly to say now that we would be better off to "shift more power towards the Congress.", when it is and has always been, totally the power of Congress. To now shift more power to Congress means that at some point someone took more power from Congress. How, when and why did that happen and no one notice until now?

As a practical matter, that power has been with the president ever since he made this decision. If it goes up to the Supreme Court and they say he has reached beyond his legitimate discretion, that shifts the power back.

Republicans will cheer this, of course, because anything seen as a setback for Obama is viewed by them as a great thing. But what a lot of them probably don't think about is that this will set precedent. And the precedent is ultimately one that INCREASES the role of government, in that it takes away the power of the president to unilaterally decide on non-enforcement of laws he doesn't like. Such a precedent will help out the liberal cause more often than the conservative one, since liberals tend to favor more government intervention and Republicans less, even if the opposite is true in the case of undocumented immigrants.

For example, consider how frequently the Bush administration willfully refused to enforce regulations effectively. They were less open about it than Obama, but there was effectively a stand-down order when it came to enforcing all sorts of environmental, tax, and labor laws. For example, he was famously extremely lax about enforcing overtime laws. If your business treated a non-exempt employee as an exempt employee, to get around paying time and a half, there was almost no chance Bush's labor department would do anything about it. A private person might incur the expense of trying to sue, but as far as the Executive Branch was concerned, he was on his own. When Obama was elected, HR Departments flew into a flurry of activity, since they knew their companies had become complacent after eight years of Bush being asleep at the switch, and so if the new administration returned to anything more than a token enforcement of those rules, they were extremely vulnerable to huge liability for past unpaid overtime:

http://www.compensationcafe.com/2009/04/uncle-sam-may-be-watching-you.html

I applaud a precedent that will reduce presidential enforcement discretion. Then we'll get less of this kind of thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But, this can definitely be filed, for Republicans, under "be careful what you wish for, because you might actually get it."

 

[Arkady]

You do realize that Obama has still used far fewer executive actions than Bush or Clinton. Why did you never call them kings? It is totally stupid what you suggest.

Yes, it is ironic that Obama, one of the least activist presidents of the modern era, is the one the Republicans have convinced themselves is the most imperial. Although I also think he's overreaching his proper Constitutional authority, he's actually far less aggressive about it than Bush, Clinton, and especially Reagan (much less past over-reacher-in-chief FDR).

 

[worldlymrb]

It'll be interesting to see how this is handled as it goes up through the Supreme Court. I think it's good that we'll be getting some clear precedent on the question, since that can guide these matters in the future. I'm actually in favor of reining in the presidency in this way. Although our current president is fairly good and our current Congress is a smoking dumpster fire, I think in the long term the country will be better off if we shift more power towards the Congress. For my fellow liberals who disagree, just picture how this same concept could be abused by a Republican president who didn't like the laws. For example, picture that Congress passes some laws that require power generators to buy carbon credits to offset their pollution. And picture that a Republican who opposed that idea simply uses his discretion to refuse to enforce those provisions, such that power generators can continue to pollute without buying the credits. That destroys the checks-and-balances system. Although some reasonable discretion in where to allocate enforcement resources is necessary for our system to work, if that's taken to the extreme of actually negating the impact of a law, then it's taken too far.

I Agree.

Federal Govt runs the economy and the Executive Branch has hundreds of heavily armed un-elected bureaucracies who can write regulations and dictates counter to the public law they are supposed to uphold.

If Obama can give executive amnesty to illegal immigrants, cannot a president Trump issue an executive Amnesty for those who opt out of ObamaCare?

How about a President Carson issuing a executive order to U.S Treasury to issue a $10k tax refund to all taxpayers?

Or a president Sanders issuing executive orders to the IRS to issue a new rule that collects $10,000 wealth fee on all pension funds?

 

[Jen]

It's about time he learned what his job is and how to really do it.

****************
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words saying he was claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/

He won't learn. People who are filled with hubris do not learn. We have some of those on this board. It must be some sort of law of nature.

 

[marvin martian]

For my fellow liberals who disagree, just picture how this same concept could be abused by a Republican president who didn't like the laws

No need to imagine. The current president has been doing it during his entire administration. From the due process-free executions of American citizens, to the unconstitutional immigration decrees, it's happening right now. Just because you pretend it isn't doesn't change the facts.

 

[Arkady]

I Agree.

Federal Govt runs the economy and the Executive Branch has hundreds of heavily armed un-elected bureaucracies who can write regulations and dictates counter to the public law they are supposed to uphold.

If Obama can give executive amnesty to illegal immigrants, cannot a president Trump issue an executive Amnesty for those who opt out of ObamaCare?

How about a President Carson issuing a executive order to U.S Treasury to issue a $10k tax refund to all taxpayers?

Or a president Sanders issuing executive orders to the IRS to issue a new rule that collects $10,000 wealth fee on all pension funds?

Yep. There's a grey area, though. I mean, there are limited resources available for enforcement and a president has to make judgment calls about where to allocate them. If, for example, you step up federal enforcement of white collar crime laws, at any given budget level, you have to reduce enforcement of other things like, say, federal enforcement of drug laws. I think courts should give the president a decent amount of discretion to act in good faith, in accordance with legal guidance, in deciding where to scrimp and where to concentrate enforcement. But when you get a president effectively negating the law, with non-enforcement driven by opposition to the law rather than by juggling competing priorities, that's not acceptable. As much as I sympathize with Obama's goals on immigration, I think he's passed beyond good-faith priorities-juggling, and into willful nullification. I'd say the same for the Bush administration when it came to lax enforcement of labor laws or the Reagan administration when it came to letting the S&Ls run wild.

 

[Arkady]

No need to imagine. The current president has been doing it during his entire administration. From the due process-free executions of American citizens, to the unconstitutional immigration decrees, it's happening right now. Just because you pretend it isn't doesn't change the facts.

You didn't follow the argument. Try harder. The whole point of urging my fellow liberals to imagine a Republican doing such things is to force them to see the shoe on the other foot, so that they aren't led away from proper principles by their sympathies for a particular politician. In the same sense, you'd do well to imagine it in the context of a Republican president, so you can picture it in a setting where your raw hatred of the president doesn't dictate your position. As citizens, we need to force ourselves to think in terms of the long-term principles of good governance, rather than the temporary alignment of the political factions.

 

[marvin martian]

You didn't follow the argument. Try harder. The whole point of urging my fellow liberals to imagine a Republican doing such things is to force them to see the shoe on the other foot, so that they aren't led away from proper principles by their sympathies for a particular politician. In the same sense, you'd do well to imagine it in the context of a Republican president, so you can picture it in a setting where your raw hatred of the president doesn't dictate your position. As citizens, we need to force ourselves to think in terms of the long-term principles of good governance, rather than the temporary alignment of the political factions.

Actually, your standard attempt to misdirect people away from Obama's actual misdeeds to those of some hypothetical, future republican president were quite easy to follow. Especially given the fact that you've done the same thing many times in the past.

 

[connieb]

It's about time he learned what his job is and how to really do it.

****************
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words saying he was claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/

It is good that on occasion we are reminded that there are Co-Equal branches of Government.

 

[Saladin2]

It is good that on occasion we are reminded that there are Co-Equal branches of Government.

Relax...Their will be appeals and this was all foreseen by the White House...Still the thought of Federal agents breaking up families and hauling off Children that have No memory of Mexico really excites you Right Wing types doesn't it?

 

[Arkady]

Actually, your standard attempt to misdirect people away from Obama's actual misdeeds to those of some hypothetical, future republican president were quite easy to follow. Especially given the fact that you've done the same thing many times in the past.

Not to worry, Marvin, the smarter readers followed it just fine.

 

[connieb]

Relax...Their will be appeals and this was all foreseen by the White House...Still the thought of Federal agents breaking up families and hauling off Children that have No memory of Mexico really excites you Right Wing types doesn't it?

No, actually. Its very sad that some parents are irresponsible criminals who engage in acts of fraud, deception, tax avoidance on a daily basis as they go about their lives. It is unfortunate that they were so short sighted as to not see the potential dangers and disruptions their lawlessness would cause their children. Regardless - no one is forcing families to break up. The parents of minor children can absolutely take their children back to wherever they came from. No one is requiring they have to stay here just because they were born here. And, really, its only fair that they get to know and learn their heritage first hand.

 

[marvin martian]

Not to worry, Marvin, the smarter readers followed it just fine.

Yes, as I said, we all followed your sad attempt at deception just fine. Your employers at the DNC may not be happy to hear about it, but it's the truth.

 

[Arkady]

No, actually. Its very sad that some parents are irresponsible criminals who engage in acts of fraud, deception, tax avoidance on a daily basis as they go about their lives. It is unfortunate that they were so short sighted as to not see the potential dangers and disruptions their lawlessness would cause their children. Regardless - no one is forcing families to break up. The parents of minor children can absolutely take their children back to wherever they came from. No one is requiring they have to stay here just because they were born here. And, really, its only fair that they get to know and learn their heritage first hand.

Think about what you are requiring, though. You're talking about telling natural born American citizens that they have a choice:

(1) Leave their parents.
(2) Leave their friends, extended family, country, native language, etc,. and go live in some poor country they've probably never even visited, where they may not even speak the language.

That's pretty harsh, don't you think? Wouldn't it be better to defer expulsion of the parents until their children reach the age of majority, so that you aren't effectively punishing innocent children that way? I mean, is there really some compelling state interest for deporting the parents immediately that justifies forcing that terrible choice on their children? Isn't this a case where a little mercy would make more sense? I mean, it's not like we're talking about letting violent criminals walk the street. We're just talking about granting a temporary status to a non-violent offender for the sake of an innocent minor citizen's best interests. I'm willing to take the humane course here. Care to join me?

 

[Zoar]

He won't learn. People who are filled with hubris do not learn. We have some of those on this board. It must be some sort of law of nature.

Are you typing this while looking in the mirror??