so Reagan could pardon illegals for their crimes but Obama can't delay deportations? ok.
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 2:07:39 PM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > He’s trying his best to be. > > > > B > > > > https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/andrew-p-napolitano/president-dictator/ > The President and the Rule of Law > <https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/andrew-p-napolitano/president-dictator/> > > By Andrew P. Napolitano > <https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/andrew-p-napolitano/?ptype=article> > > November 12, 2015 > > Earlier this week, a federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld an > injunction issued by a federal district court in Texas against the federal > government, thereby preventing it from implementing President Barack > Obama’s executive orders on immigration. Critics had argued and two federal > courts have now agreed that the orders effectively circumvented federal law > and were essentially unconstitutional. > > Though the injunction on its face restrains officials in the Department of > Homeland Security, it is really a restraint on the president himself. Here > is the back story. > > President Obama has long wished to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws > to make it easier for people who are here illegally to remain here and to > make it easier for them eventually to acquire the attributes of > citizenship. He may have a bighearted moral motivation, or he may have a > partisan political motivation. I don’t know which it is, but his motivation > has driven him to use extraconstitutional means to achieve his ends. > > During his first term in office, he attempted to have federal laws changed > — quite properly at first — by offering proposals to Congress, which it > rejected. That rejection left in place a complex regulatory scheme that is > partially administered by DHS and partially by the Department of Justice. > It left about 11.3 million people unlawfully present in the United States. > > The conscious decision of Congress not to change the law in the face of > such a large number of undocumented people here left those people, adults > and children, exposed to deportation. It also left them entitled to > financial benefits paid for by the states in which they reside. > > Deportation is a lengthy and expensive process. The courts have ruled that > all people subject to deportation are entitled to a hearing, with counsel > paid for by the government. If they lose, they are entitled to an appeal, > with counsel paid for by the government. The government has teams of > prosecutors, defense counsel and judges who address only deportations. The > highest number of people the government has successfully deported in a year > is about 250,000, which was done in 2013. If you add removals without trial > (many are voluntary) and rejections at the border, the number swells to > 438,000 a year. > > While awaiting deportation, those people here unlawfully and not confined > are entitled to the social safety net that states offer everyone else, as > well as the direct benefits states make available to citizens, such as > public schooling, access to hospital emergency rooms, and housing and > personal living assistance. > > Frustrated that Congress thwarted his will, President Obama — resorting to > his now infamous and probably regretted one-liner that he can govern by > using a pen and a phone — issued a series of executive orders in 2012 to > various federal agencies, directing them to cease deportation of > undocumented people if they complied with certain standards that the > president wished of them. The standards, compliance with which would bar > deportation, were essentially the same as those that the president had > sought and Congress had rejected. > > Can the president write his own laws or procedures? > > In the litigation that came to a head early this week, 26 states, led by > Texas, sued the federal government. In that lawsuit, the states argued that > they would be made to endure unbearable financial burdens if the > undocumented folks stayed where they are and if the states continued to > make the same social safety net available to them as they make available to > their lawful residents. Thus, the states argued, the president forced the > states to spend money they hadn’t budgeted or collected to support a legal > scheme that Congress had not only never authorized but expressly rejected. > > Can the president write his own laws and procedures? > > The states also argued in their lawsuit that if the DHS and DOJ complied > with the president’s executive orders, those federal departments would be > exceeding their authority under the statutes because the president was > exceeding his authority. This is a president who has argued dozens of times > in public that he is not a king and that he lacks the ability to recast the > laws as he wishes they had been written. > > Can the president write his own laws and procedures? > > In a word: No. The president can issue executive orders to officials in > the executive branch of government directing those officials to enforce the > laws as the president wishes them to be enforced — within the letter and > spirit of those laws. But those executive orders cannot write new laws or > revise old laws or ignore existing laws that the Congress clearly expects > to be enforced. That is just what a federal district court judge ruled > earlier this year and just what a federal appellate court ruled in > affirming the district court earlier this week. > > All people who embrace the rule of law — whether they are for open borders > or for an impenetrable border wall — should embrace these rulings because > they keep the president within the confines of the Constitution, which he > has sworn to uphold. > > Under our constitutional system of supposedly limited government, all > legislative power is vested in Congress. The president enforces the laws; > he doesn’t write them. His oath of office commits him to preserve, protect > and defend the Constitution, and it further commits him to enforce the > federal laws “faithfully” — meaning whether he personally agrees with them > or not. > > The clash between the president and the courts is as old as our republic > itself. Courts are traditionally loath to interfere with the business of > Congress or the president. Yet when the behavior of another branch of > government defies core constitutional norms, it is the duty of the courts > in a case properly before them to say what the Constitution means and to > order compliance with it. > > *Reprinted with the author’s permission.* > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY2xtcDM4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDczNDQ0NzE-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOWcxbzYyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0NzM0NDQ3MQ--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
