Boehner plans lawsuit against Obama over executive orders Deirdre Walsh Posted by
CNN Senior Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh
Updated 3:15 p.m. ET, 6/25/14
Washington (CNN) – House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday told reporters that he plans to sue President Barack Obama over his use of executive action.
"I am," the Speaker said when asked if he was planning to initiate a lawsuit.
"You know the constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws," Boehner added at a news conference on Capitol Hill.
Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President. He last convened the group in 2011 when the White House said it would no longer defend the anti same-sex marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act.
The group is made up of the top three House GOP leaders and the top two Democratic leaders.
In a memo to House members announcing next month's vote, Boehner indicated the legal action would cover a number of issues but did not cite specific cases of executive overreach.
"On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day,' the memo said.
The Speaker denied that the move was about energizing Republicans ahead the midterm elections.
"This is about defending the institution in which we serve. If you look back over the past 235 years of our history there's been movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch vs the inherent powers of the legislative branch and what we've seen clearly over the past 5 years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch," the Speaker said in response to a question from CNN.
Republicans argue that the President is breaching his constitutional power by side-stepping the legislative process. Obama has used executive actions as a way to bypass a deeply divided Congress, avoiding inaction on issues the White House has made hallmarks of the President's second term agenda.
So far, the Republican-controlled House has passed two bills aimed at curbing executive orders by the President, neither of which have gone anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
The White House responded Wednesday to Boehner's plans to bring a lawsuit against the President, pointing the blame at the GOP for uncompromising opposition to Obama's policies.
"For a long time we have seen Republicans block progress in Congress, a range of bills that would promote economic strength but in this case it seems that Republicans have shifted their opposition into a higher gear," spokesman Josh Earnest said at the White House press briefing.
"Frankly, it's a gear I didn't know previously existed.'
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi Wednesday called the lawsuit "a subterfuge" and said Republicans in Congress are "doing nothing" and "they have to give some aura of activity."
Pelosi said the House GOP effort to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act in court wasted $2.3 million in taxpayer money, and said "here we go again."
Obama has used his executive authority to push through a number of issues. Most recently, he directed the Department of Labor to extend family leave to same-sex couples. Previously, he raised the minimum wage for federal contractors and halt deportations for many children in the United States illegally.
Rank and file House Republicans have been pushing for months for top GOP leaders to file a lawsuit.
Conservative Republicans have long complained that the President has overstepped his authority – citing the series of changes that the Obama has made on his own to tweak the implementation of Obamacare.
Congressional Republicans, fueled by anger from their grassroots supporters, also argued it was time to explore legal action when the President began saying in January that he had a “pen and a phone” and would take action on key priorities if Congress failed to move legislation.
One avenue Boehner could take is to convene a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group - something he did in 2011 when the White House said it would no longer defend the anti same-sex marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Since there is only a day and a half left before Congress heads out for a week long recess, the lawsuit is not expected to be filed until next month. The lawmakers who make up the group – the top three House GOP leaders and the top two Democratic leaders – will have to meet and vote – and – that isn’t expected to happen until after Congress gets back from 4th of July break.
Boehner just so happened to be with the President on Tuesday, along with Vice President Joe Biden, at the White House to meet with members of the 2013 U.S. and International Presidents Cup teams. And the mood didn't seem to be too tense between the House leader and the commander-in-chief, given reports of Boehner's possible lawsuit.
Obama joked: "I'm joined by two of my favorite golf partners, the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden and Speaker of the House John Boehner."
Commissioner Tim Finchem jokingly said that he's been keeping track of who criticizes the President about his golf game, and Boehner was not among his critics.
"The only thing that he doesn't criticize me about," the President added, to laughs.
"Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President"
So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.
Boehner plans lawsuit against Obama over executive orders
Yeah good luck with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: "So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.
It isn't being done by anything as it has to pass to actually be more than rhetoric; it is a bill being presented by a partisan leader to grab headlines.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: "So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.
It isn't being done by anything as it has to pass to actually be more than rhetoric; it is a bill being presented by a partisan leader to grab headlines.
Would have had a bit more credibility if he made the announcement with a Democrat right next to him as a co-author of the bill he wants to introduce. I guess he couldn't find one...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.
If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.
Mr. Boehner actually DOES have a remedy for executive overreach, of course, but civil litigation isn't it.
Ouze wrote: If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.
Then I await the other members of the panel de-crying the lawsuit
Ouze wrote: If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.
Then I await the other members of the panel de-crying the lawsuit
They probably come from conservative states and are only on the panel tokenly to support their next election bid.
Ouze wrote: If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.
Then I await the other members of the panel de-crying the lawsuit
So a repeat of the bi-partisan ACA panels that were/were not bi-partisan after all?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.
If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.
Mr. Boehner actually DOES have a remedy for executive overreach, of course, but civil litigation isn't it.
"fething that chicken." First time I've ever heard that expression .
Its not about the total number of Executive Orders he signed.
One of the things Obama is being sued for is the policy he enacted via Executive Order concerning unaccompanied immigration of minors to the US.
Jihadin wrote: Its not about the total number of Executive Orders he signed.
One of the things Obama is being sued for is the policy he enacted via Executive Order concerning unaccompanied immigration of minors to the US.
If only there was some way for the legislative branch to write laws that can overwrite executive orders. Why doesn't the Constitution include some sort of system for checks and balances between the branches...
d-usa wrote: If only there was some way for the legislative branch to write laws that can overwrite executive orders. Why doesn't the Constitution include some sort of system for checks and balances between the branches...
Stop reading the Constitution. It's to be held up and admired as the holy word of God himself, unquestionable and without errors of any kind, protecting everything Murica. You. Do. Not. Read. It.
d-usa wrote: If only there was some way for the legislative branch to write laws that can overwrite executive orders. Why doesn't the Constitution include some sort of system for checks and balances between the branches...
United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law[1] when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes
All Presidents are within their power to implement an Executive Order
Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.
Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so
Edit
The other issue is Advance Parole
Advance parole is an immigration document issued by the United States. It is not a re-entry permit; it is only issued to aliens without permanent residency. Advance Parole is permission for certain aliens, who do not have a valid immigrant visa, to re-enter the United States after traveling abroad. Such aliens include those who have applied to adjust their status to that of permanent resident or to change non-immigrant status. Advance parole must be approved before the applicant leaves the United States, or any residency application will in general be denied.
Aliens in the United States who have:
an application for adjustment of status pending.
been admitted as a refugee or have been granted asylum.
been granted benefits under the Family Unity Program.
been granted Temporary Protected Status.
an asylum application pending.
an emergent personal or bona fide reason to travel temporarily abroad.
Note: Aliens holding valid K-3 or K-4 visas, as well as H-1 (temporary worker in a specialty occupation) or L-1 (intra-company transferee) visas and their dependents in H-4 or L-2 status who have filed for adjustment of status do not have to file for advance parole as long as they maintain their non-immigrant status. [1]
This was enacted 11 Feb 2011
Works with
Arriving Alien
Matter of Oseiwusu, 22 I&N Dec. 19 (BIA 1998)
(1) An alien who arrives in the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is an “arriving alien,” as that term is defined in the federal regulations.
(2) According to the regulations, an Immigration Judge has no authority over the apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens and is therefore without authority to consider the bond request of an alien returning pursuant to a grant of advance parole.
d-usa wrote: If only there was some way for the legislative branch to write laws that can overwrite executive orders. Why doesn't the Constitution include some sort of system for checks and balances between the branches...
There is. But successive Presidents from both parties have undermined that
This is about defending the institution in which we serve. If you look back over the past 235 years of our history there's been movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch vs the inherent powers of the legislative branch and what we've seen clearly over the past 5 years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch," the Speaker said in response to a question from CNN.
Is this the first time a POTUS has been sued? I can see Obama doing an Executive Order to bypass Congress. I can see also Congress suing the POTUS bypassing Congress(?)
This is about defending the institution in which we serve. If you look back over the past 235 years of our history there's been movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch vs the inherent powers of the legislative branch and what we've seen clearly over the past 5 years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch," the Speaker said in response to a question from CNN.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
He must have been outraged when Reagan and both Bush were slinging them around left and right.
But considering how often I hear that Obama has written more EOs than all the other presidents combined it is not surprising that facts be damned.
Gotta rally that base, even if that is 'not what you are doing'.
This is about defending the institution in which we serve. If you look back over the past 235 years of our history there's been movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch vs the inherent powers of the legislative branch and what we've seen clearly over the past 5 years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch," the Speaker said in response to a question from CNN.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
He must have been outraged when Reagan and both Bush were slinging them around left and right.
But considering how often I hear that Obama has written more EOs than all the other presidents combined it is not surprising that facts be damned.
Gotta rally that base, even if that is 'not what you are doing'.
Don't you know the age of fact checking is long gone. It's all about hype and feeling that you're right, right? As long as it helps push your own agenda and you get a few idiots blindly following you, then it's right. That's how politics and the news work.
LordofHats wrote: I always thought they were some kind of stage acting trope that travels the country bringing laughter and joy to children everywhere.
Well congress is the collective noun for a group of baboons...
Jihadin wrote: Checks and Balance does not apply to Executive Orders
That's not true.
Congress can pass laws to counter EO... or, they can withhold the purse to force the Executive branch to rescind such EO.
All it takes is Political Will*.
*which, they don't have.
Thanks for the correction Whembly
Some of Bush's controversial Executive Orders
Spoiler:
No. 1:Gutting the Presidential Records Act
Executive Order 13233 (PDF)
Nov. 1, 2001
What the order says: With Executive Order 13233, the Bush administration tried to gut the Presidential Records Act, passed in 1978 to make sure that the internal documents of the executive branch are public and generally will become part of the historical record. The 1978 law itself was a compromise in favor of privacy in some respects: Presidential records aren't disclosed for up to 12 years after an administration leaves office, and requests for them are subject to the limits imposed by the Freedom of Information Act, which means that classified documents stay secret. But the Bush order essentially threw out the law's bid for transparency altogether. After stonewalling for months over access to documents from the Reagan era, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales drafted an order that gives a sitting president, or the president whose records are being requested, the power to review a documents request, with no time limit. If either president says no, you have to sue to get the records.
Why it should go: The American Historical Association hates this order for good reason: It puts a president's interest in secrecy—to prevent embarrassment, inconvenient revelations, whatever—over the public's interest in understanding past events of national import. In 2007, a federal judge struck down part of EO 13233 for conflicting with the Presidential Records Act—which trumps a presidential order, since it's a law enacted by Congress. But parts of the order remain in effect, and a bill in Congress to scrap the whole thing has stalled. The next president shouldn't wait for the judiciary or the legislature: He should throw out this order on his own, as proof that a dozen years after he leaves office, he won't be afraid of an inside view of his White House.
No. 2:Blocking Stem-Cell Research
Executive Order 13435 (PDF)
June 20, 2007
What the order says: In August 2001, Bush issued a rule limiting federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research to existing colonies of such cells. Five years later, he expended the first veto of his presidency to reject legislation served up by a Republican Congress to ease those restrictions. This subsequent executive order a year later, issued the same day he vetoed the legislation a second time, encourages research into alternative measures of creating pluripotent stem cells. The order directs the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to prioritize research consistent with Bush's previous directives and devote resources to finding other means of creating human stem cells.
Why it should go: Supporting alternative means of creating stem cells is a fine idea—just not at the expense of supporting the more immediately available source of stem cells, which are among the most promising lines of medical research today. There is certainly hope that the debate over whether to destroy human embryos to collect these valuable one-size-fits-all cells will eventually be moot. Researchers have found ways to turn back the clock on adult skin cells, reprogramming them as embryonic cells. But this is a tricky process that involves inserting new genes, and it's not yet a sufficient alternative to embryonic stem cells. In the meantime, Bush's order is diverting funds even from research that could eventually sidestep his ethical concerns; scientists have successfully harvested bone fide stem cells without harming the nascent embryo. Both McCain and Obama supported the legislation that would have loosened Bush's research restrictions when it came before the Senate in 2006 and 2007. While some supporters of embryonic-stem-cell research have questioned McCain's resolve, his campaign says his position is unchanged. This order should go no matter who is elected.
No. 3: Finessing the Geneva Conventions
Executive Order 13440 (PDF)
July 20, 2007
What the order says: After the Supreme Court pushed back against the Bush administration's efforts to hold the Guantanamo detainees indefinitely and without charges, doubts arose about the legality of the CIA's use of coercive interrogation techniques (or torture, if you think water-boarding amounts to that). For a time, the CIA's interrogation squeeze was on hold. Then Bush issued Executive Order 13440, and the interrogators started rolling again. The order isn't explicit about which practices it allows—that remains classified—but it may still sidestep the protections in the Geneva Convention against humiliating and degrading treatment. According to the New York Times, water-boarding is off-limits, but sleep deprivation may not be, and exposure to extreme heat and cold is allowed.
hy it should go: EO 13440 looks like an improvement on previous directives to the CIA, like the memos from the Justice Department written by John Yoo, which narrowly defined torture and Geneva's protections. (According to Barton Gellman's new book about Cheney, the only technique Yoo rejected on legal grounds was burying a detainee alive.) Still, the executive order leaves the door open to techniques that the United States would not want used against its own soldiers and so is part of the Bush administration detritus that has damaged the United States' moral authority abroad. The administration's record is so tarnished on this score that the next president should declare that he is scrapping this order, so he can start over and come up with his own policy on interrogation and the CIA.
No. 4: Handing the Keys to the Vice President
Executive Order 13292 (PDF)
March 25, 2003
What the order says: In 1995, then-President Bill Clinton issued an executive order that made it easier to declassify documents, and hundreds of millions of pages of information about the White House tumbled forth. In 2003, the Bush administration took another tack, amending Clinton's order to get the vice president into the business of classifying whatever he wants. Executive Order 13292 gives the vice president the same power to classify documents that the president has.
Why it should go: EO 13292 is a twofer: It both expands the scope of secrecy and the powers of the vice presidency. As Byron York argues in the National Review, "Since the beginning of the administration, Dick Cheney has favored measures allowing the executive branch to keep more things secret. And in March 2003, the president gave him the authority to do it." This is reminiscent of Cheney's efforts to prevent the National Archives and Records Administration from enforcing the rules that govern classified information as they pertain to the vice president. Cheney is famous for wanting his office to be a closed box. Executive Order 13292 looks like it was written expressly for him. We hope that the next vice president won't also want to keep secrets to this extent. But the boss should eliminate this worry by revoking this order.
No. 5: Free Rein in Iraq
Executive Order 13303 (PDF)
May 28, 2003
What the order says: Issued two months after the invasion of Iraq, this order offers broad legal protection for U.S. corporations dealing in Iraqi oil. Bush's directive, justified as a means of protecting Iraqi oil profits, nullifies any sort of judicial proceedings relating to either Iraqi petroleum or the newly created Development Fund for Iraq. The executive order also declares a national emergency to deal with the threat to a peaceful reconstruction of Iraq, which Bush has renewed every year since, most recently in May 2008.
Why it should go: This directive is the foundation for all of Bush's subsequent executive orders on Iraq (see No. 6, below), so it's the logical place to begin rolling back abuses of authority relating to the war. Given the many concerns over cronyism and waste by U.S. contractors in Iraq, revoking their blanket legal protection when oil is on the table is justified. Watchdog groups originally feared that the order could be used to prevent people with tort claims from suing corporations working in Iraq. That hasn't come to pass so far—Tom Devine, the legal director at the Government Accountability Project, says he has not seen the order applied in any legal case. Still, given that the United States will probably be in Iraq for at least 16 months after the next president takes office, it's not too late to inject a little accountability into the contracting. As the Government Accountability Project wrote at the time, "The scope of the EO's mandate for lawlessness is limited only by the imagination." The order is also overkill; the U.N. resolution that passed concurrently with it, which was hailed as a major diplomatic victory for the United States and Britain at the time, contains more limited legal immunity for oil-related commerce in Iraq.
No. 6: Going After Troublemakers in Iraq
Executive Order 13438 (PDF)
July 17, 2007
What the order says: This order grants the administration the power to freeze the assets of an abstract but broadly defined group of people who threaten the stability of Iraq. The list of targeted people includes anyone who has propagated (or helped to propagate) violence in Iraq in an effort to destabilize the reconstruction. Most ominously, it also applies to anyone who poses a "significant risk of committing" a future act of violence to that end. The order, which applies to anyone in the United States or in U.S. control abroad, also declares, "Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited." The order appears to acknowledge that it could conflict with constitutional protections but then states that targets of its provisions do not need to be notified ahead of time that their assets will be frozen.
Why it should go: The Fifth Amendment has a few interesting things to say about the seizure of property without due process—namely, you can't do it. While this is far from the first time the Bush administration has trampled constitutional rights in the name of national security, this order, if broadly interpreted, could target war protesters in the United States. Then-White House spokesman Tony Snow said at the time that it was intended to target terrorists and insurgents, but the language of the order is vaguer. This EO drew condemnation from all ideological directions, from Swift-boater Jerome Corsi to the ACLU. One needn't be a civil libertarian to see the danger of the order's loose definitions or wonder why we needed the order in the first place. Bonus: The next month, Bush issued a similar order targeting mischief-makers in Lebanon and their supporters. That one can go, too.
No. 7: Eyes and Ears in the Agencies
Executive Order 13422 (PDF)
Jan. 18, 2007
What the order says: Recent presidents have gone back and forth over how much control the White House should exert over writing federal regulations, particularly in contested areas like environmental policy. Unsurprisingly, Bush came down on the side of strong White House influence. This order mandates the designation of a presidential appointee in each federal agency as "regulatory policy officer," with authority to oversee the rule-making process. This largely revises Bill Clinton's 1993 executive order granting agencies more regulatory independence from the White House (which nullified two of Reagan's executive orders). Defenders contend that it is important for the administration to be able to balance regulatory policy with business and economic concerns.
Why it should go: The Bush administration has shown no qualms about interfering with federal regulations normally left to civil servants, particularly on environmental fronts like ozone limits, as Democrats like Rep. Henry Waxman, the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, have pointed out. Repealing the order would be a step toward scrubbing the agencies of the stench of political tampering. The next president shouldn't mix political appointees with civil servants from the inception of the regulatory process by requiring a company man in each agency to supervise.
No. 8:Letting Religious Groups Call the Hiring Shots
Executive Order 13279 (PDF)
Dec. 12, 2002
What the order says: Adding to the pair of 2001 executive orders that encouraged religious groups to apply for federal money for social services, Bush's December 2002 order made it easier for churches and synagogues to take the money by letting them skirt certain anti-discrimination laws. Because of this order, the faith-based groups can take federal funds while refusing to hire people who aren't of the faith the groups espouse.
Why it should go: As Timothy Noah pointed out in Slate at the time, this seems sensible enough at first: "Why shouldn't government-funded religious charities be allowed to favor members of their own religion when hiring, firing, and promoting?" But there are a couple of problems here. The first is that the groups get to define for themselves who counts as a good Baptist or a good Jew—and what if they decide someone is out because he or she is gay, for example? The second problem is that it's not really clear why Catholic charities should be able to hire only Catholics to serve meals to the homeless, if that work is being funded by the government. In a debate on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, Christopher Anders of the ACLU framed the order this way: "What this is about is creating a special right for some organizations that don't want to comply with the civil rights protections." James Towey, then director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said, "The question is, 'Do they lose right to hire according to religious beliefs when they take federal money?' " Either way you frame it, the order is a bad idea. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have pledged to continue federal funding of faith-based programs, but Obama has promised that groups taking the money won't be able to make social-services hires on the basis of religion.
No. 9: The Alternative-Fuel Fix-All
Executive Order 13423 (PDF)
Jan. 26, 2007
What the order says: Shortly after his 2007 State of the Union address, in which he devoted significant time to environmental proposals, Bush signed Executive Order 13423. Among other things, the order requires federal agencies to cut petroleum-based-fuel usage by 2 percent annually through 2015 while increasing alternative-fuel use by 10 percent each year. The order also requires agencies to reduce overall energy consumption and purchase more hybrid vehicles.
Why it should go: On the face of it, Bush's directive seems like a step in the right direction. Officials in California, however, were quick to question the policy's ecological bottom line. Producing alternative fuels, they argued, can result in a large spike in greenhouse-gas emissions, particularly when harvesting resources like oil shale and coal. There's also doubt that the alternative-fuel industry simply has the capacity to meet the order's requirements. As the Washington Post editorialized, "Where might 20 billion alternative-fuel gallons come from?" To complicate matters, the Supreme Court ruled two months later that the Environmental Protection Agency does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, prompting Bush to issue another executive order directing several agencies to draft guidelines for reducing emissions from cars and trucks. The sound, responsible energy policy that should be at the top of the list for the next president—and Congress—will need realistic goals and a big-picture understanding of costs and benefits of alternative fuels.
Update, Oct. 3, 2008
Last week, Slate compiled the nine most odious executive orders issued by George W. Bush that the next administration should overturn and asked readers to supply the 10th. Of the submissions, the most popular by far was National Security Presidential Directive 51, the Bush administration's plan for keeping the government functional in the case of a catastrophic crisis. The policy is not technically an executive order, but we'll allow it. The national-security presidential directive is a close-enough cousin and highly worthy of revocation.
What the order says: The public part ofNSPD-51 grants broad authority to the president in a time of emergency, explicitly stating, "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." The rest of the order is fairly bureaucratic, appointing a national continuity coordinator and directing agency heads to develop their own plans.
But that's not all. Not only has the White House classified most of the annexes to the directive, it has refused to show them to the members of Congress on relevant committees. As the Oregonian reported, the White House stonewalled efforts by Rep. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat and member of the homeland-security committee, to gain access to the classified parts of the directive.
Why it should go: A partly classified plan for national emergencies only fuels the sense of foreboding that the White House has staked out wider and wider powers under the guise of national security. As Ron Rosenbaum wrote in Slate when the directive was released, the secrecy gives rise to all sorts of fears about plans for succession that set aside those provided for in the Constitution, of the sort that Ronald Reagan supposedly put in place. To be sure, cataclysmic emergencies may call for strong, centralized leadership in their immediate aftermath. But any responsible policy for such a scenario should be both transparent and short-lived, focused on the speedy restoration of checks and balances on executive power.
Think another issue from what I understand is the situation with Bergdahl. The 30 day notification that wasn't done.
The main one though is the implementing Executive Order for the DREAM ACT
Jihadin wrote: Is this the first time a POTUS has been sued? I can see Obama doing an Executive Order to bypass Congress. I can see also Congress suing the POTUS bypassing Congress(?)
I'm pretty sure somebody tried to sue Andrew Jackson.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote: The US political system makes the UK government look almost mature, professional and effectual.Almost.
Our unwritten constitution is far superior to a written one
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, since when did Americans sue their President? What happened to old school solutions like revolutions, or civil war, or who can eat the most cheeseburgers in 30 seconds?
the Judicial Branch has the power to resolve disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches. When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure in the Judicial Branch by filing suit in Federal Court in situations in which:
There is no one else who can challenge the president's failure, and harm is being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our laws; There is no legislative remedy; and There is explicit House authorization for the lawsuit, through a vote authorizing the litigation against the president's failure.
There's the check and balance for Executive Order I believe. Or one of.
the Judicial Branch has the power to resolve disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches. When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure in the Judicial Branch by filing suit in Federal Court in situations in which:
There is no one else who can challenge the president's failure, and harm is being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our laws; There is no legislative remedy; and There is explicit House authorization for the lawsuit, through a vote authorizing the litigation against the president's failure.
There's the check and balance for Executive Order I believe. Or one of.
With all due respect, Jihadin, are you making this up? Just been looking through my copy of the constitution (yes I have a copy ) and I can see no such provision.
Unless of course you're quoting from the Confederate version which I'm not familiar with.
Honestly, I'm always annoyed people make claims like "Bush is the worst President in American history." We have James Polk, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S Grant, Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding we have so many amazing options for worst President ever. Really, I'd say we've done pretty well this last century compared to the first XD
This generation of Americans
I remember the good old days, when Americas great leaders solved their disputes with guns at dawn and cane beatings
the Judicial Branch has the power to resolve disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches. When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure in the Judicial Branch by filing suit in Federal Court in situations in which:
There is no one else who can challenge the president's failure, and harm is being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our laws; There is no legislative remedy; and There is explicit House authorization for the lawsuit, through a vote authorizing the litigation against the president's failure.
There's the check and balance for Executive Order I believe. Or one of.
With all due respect, Jihadin, are you making this up? Just been looking through my copy of the constitution (yes I have a copy ) and I can see no such provision.
Unless of course you're quoting from the Confederate version which I'm not familiar with.
The three branches of the federal government — legislative, executive, and judicial — operate within a constitutional system known as "checks and balances." This means that although each branch is formally separate from the other two, the Constitution often requires cooperation among the branches. Federal laws, for example, are passed by Congress and signed by the President. The judicial branch, in turn, has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them, but judges depend upon the executive branch to enforce court decisions.
Boehner I think is attempting to get the US Court to overturn executive orders. I believe the main one with Immigration is the primary.
Wiki shows that two were overturn in 1999. One was Clinton and one that was done by Truman.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit
Boehner memo
Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"
Constitution
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President. He last convened the group in 2011 when the White House said it would no longer defend the anti same-sex marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act.
So he convened the Group before, and it was ineffectual?
Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"
Constitution
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Think this might actually go to SCOTUS
Immigration seems the most likely candidate given the "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," requirement. If it is expect a blitz to try and force reform though to beat the lawsuit
Jihadin wrote: Think it stands a good chance of hitting the courts being Obama basically enacted the Dream Act through Executive Orders. Then adding Advance Parole
I think it has absolutely no chance, zero, none, null, no chance of hitting the courts. The president cannot be sued in court for any actions he took that were within the purview of his office.
If the Republican party thinks what President Obama has exceeded his authority in issuing an executive order, they may:
A.) Refuse to fund any action associated with it
B.) Pass legislation to overturn it, and then overturn the inevitable veto as well
C.) Impeach the president
D.) Pull up their big boy pants, suck it up, accept that elections have consequences, and appeal to the American people to elect them into power during the next round of elections
What would de-funding Immigration accomplish. His Executive Order does not need funding being its new guide lines within the organizations.
DACA does not need funding being one
Advance Parole does not funding being another
Jihadin wrote: What would de-funding Immigration accomplish. His Executive Order does not need funding being its new guide lines within the organizations.
DACA does not need funding being one
Advance Parole does not funding being another
Then they should pick another option. There were several. Perhaps pass legislation with language that subverts the current policy.
I actually think he picked the right way to go about it. Let the Judicial to decide.
You posted this on the Justice thread on Recess Appointments
This is the right decision to make. While declaring that you're never out of session by having a single elected official gavel in and out a one minute session is clearly trolling (and kind of hilarious, if it wasn't our tax dollars), and a way of subverting the executive authority to make recess appointments, nonetheless only the congress can define when they are, or are not, in session.
Don't like it? Work with congress, or win more seats.
Obama lost out on Dream Act with Congress so he Executive Order it.
Boehner lost out with Congress so he went Judicial.
Boehner is letting the Judicial Adjudicate Obama Executive Order in Immigration
Jihadin wrote: I actually think he picked the right way to go about it. Let the Judicial to decide.
The judicial has no role in deciding immigration policy. The judiciary's only role is to find laws passed by Congress as consistent with the constitution, or not. How the executive chooses to execute those laws is literally not within their jurisdiction.
What Mr. Boehner is doing is a complete and total abdication of leadership, and it weakens his branch of government by doing so.
Jihadin wrote: Boehner lost out with Congress so he went Judicial.
And, just to clarify, this case has nothing to do with Mr. Boehner, at all - he's not a party to it. The case is called National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, under which the Noel Canning Group sued over some decisions made by the NLRB, which in their view were illegitimate because of unlawful recess appointments. It was not "the congress suing the executive" - it was a standard constitutional challenge.
It reinforces a President's right or duty to issue a decree, order, or proclamation to carry out a particular power that truly is committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress. On the other hand, the constitutional separation of powers cuts the other way if the President attempts to issue an order regarding a matter that is expressly committed to another branch of government; it might even render the presidential action void. Finally, separation of powers principles may be unclear or ambiguous when the power is shared by two branches of government.
Edit
Dream Act was shot down in Congress
Then
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is a memorandum authored by the Obama administration on June 15, 2012
Jihadin wrote: Boehner lost out with Congress so he went Judicial.
And, just to clarify, this case has nothing to do with Mr. Boehner, at all - he's not a party to it. The case is called National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, under which the Noel Canning Group sued over some decisions made by the NLRB, which in their view were illegitimate because of unlawful recess appointments. It was not "the congress suing the executive" - it was a standard constitutional challenge.
So... does that mean that any rulings made since that recess appointment is now rendered null and void? Since the board wouldn't have qorum?
We're all speculating lol Acting like a bunch Barrack lawyers.
Obama though is ready to do more executive orders it seems if Immigration reforms does not occur by end of July I think
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The only thing that is amazing is that was the meaning that you arrived at
Okay, let's go through this teeth pulling exercise.
You commented that this was a bi-partisan exercise. Ouze commented that this "bipartisan committee" was certain to vote 3 Republicans yay, 2 Democrats no it wasn't bi-partisan in any way. At which point you said you were waiting on other members of the panel to decry this lawsuit.
This implies you think that, absence the existance of said outcry, that it can be assumed that there are Democrats out there in favour of this lawsuit. Which is, to repeat myself, an amazing thing.
sebster wrote: This implies you think that, absence the existance of said outcry, that it can be assumed that there are Democrats out there in favour of this lawsuit. Which is, to repeat myself, an amazing thing.
To think that someone would act outside partisan interests and favour restoring the system of checks and balances so that any POTUS cannot make end arounds of Congress is indeed an amazing thing.
Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"
Constitution
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Think this might actually go to SCOTUS
Immigration seems the most likely candidate given the "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," requirement. If it is expect a blitz to try and force reform though to beat the lawsuit
WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Frustrated waiting for Congress to act on immigration reform, newly-minted White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that President Barack Obama is seeking ways to use his executive authority to directly stem a recent influx of illegal immigrants streaming into the U.S.
Speaking with MSNBC Thursday, Earnest said the Obama administration is “not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress.”
“It’s fair to say the White House and the president have been pretty disappointed,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told MSNBC. “We’re not just going to just sit around and wait interminably for Congress.”
“We’ve been waiting a year already,” continued Earnest. “The president has tasked his Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson with reviewing what options are available to the president, what is at his disposal using his executive authority to try to address some of the problems that have been created by our broken immigration system.”
The recent increase in immigrants flooding across the border includes more than 52,000 unaccompanied immigrant children who have crossed into the U.S. border since October of last year. DHS data on arrested unaccompanied minors shows that since Oct. 1, there have been 11,577 from Mexico, 13,282 from Honduras and 11,479 from Guatemala. There have been 9,850 from Salvador.
Earlier this month, President Obama called the influx an “urgent humanitarian crisis” affecting Department of Homeland Security officials.
Earnest, who replaced Jay Carney this week as White House press secretary, added that Obama’s executive actions on immigration reform are “not a substitute for robust Congressional action.”
Senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett stated last week that Obama may “build upon” his program of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which some critics are blaming for encouraging the latest surge of unaccompanied child immigrants.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The only thing that is amazing is that was the meaning that you arrived at
Okay, let's go through this teeth pulling exercise.
You commented that this was a bi-partisan exercise. Ouze commented that this "bipartisan committee" was certain to vote 3 Republicans yay, 2 Democrats no it wasn't bi-partisan in any way. At which point you said you were waiting on other members of the panel to decry this lawsuit.
This implies you think that, absence the existance of said outcry, that it can be assumed that there are Democrats out there in favour of this lawsuit. Which is, to repeat myself, an amazing thing.
Actually there are some Dem's that are forced to go along with it by their voters. The one's on the southern borders
sebster wrote: This implies you think that, absence the existance of said outcry, that it can be assumed that there are Democrats out there in favour of this lawsuit. Which is, to repeat myself, an amazing thing.
To think that someone would act outside partisan interests and favour restoring the system of checks and balances so that any POTUS cannot make end arounds of Congress is indeed an amazing thing.
If we lived in a time where that would be true about national politics that would be nice, but we aren't living in that time. Every bit of research shows we are in hyper-partisan mode as a country, though using hollow calls for bipartisanship are as popular as ever.
People realize that the ICE memo about children was written a long time ago for a very specific population and has zero to do with the current influx of children and doesn't include them, right?
d-usa wrote: People realize that the ICE memo about children was written a long time ago for a very specific population and has zero to do with the current influx of children and doesn't include them, right?
• minors and elderly individuals;
• individuals present in the United States since childhood;
Were included (way back when this memo was written) to make special considerations for minors that have spend years in the US through no fault of their own, who have grown up in the USA, were raised in the USA, and have no emotional or practical connection to the country of their heritage. They decided that sending children away that were for all their own practical experiences "American" because they grew up here was not at all in the best interest of those children and was similar to throwing a child in jail because their parents broke the law. We ended up sending kids back to South America who sometimes didn't even speak the language of the country they were send back to.
Now, we can talk about if that decision was right or wrong and we can talk about other options they had and what the effects of that decision was and if that made "anchor babies" more desirable or not.
But what the pundits are doing is taking a memo that deals specifically with "what do we do with children that grew up in the US or were born here" and claiming "this memo means that any child that jumps across the fence can never be send back and it is encouraging people to send their children into this country so that they can bring their families later".
Which goes against the actual memo, which goes against anything that ICE is saying, and which goes against the commercials that the USA is airing in South and Central American countries telling them "We do not have an amnesty program for children. If you send them here they can die on the way and they will be send back anyway!".
• minors and elderly individuals;
• individuals present in the United States since childhood;
Were included (way back when this memo was written) to make special considerations for minors that have spend years in the US through no fault of their own, who have grown up in the USA, were raised in the USA, and have no emotional or practical connection to the country of their heritage. They decided that sending children away that were for all their own practical experiences "American" because they grew up here was not at all in the best interest of those children and was similar to throwing a child in jail because their parents broke the law. We ended up sending kids back to South America who sometimes didn't even speak the language of the country they were send back to.
Now, we can talk about if that decision was right or wrong and we can talk about other options they had and what the effects of that decision was and if that made "anchor babies" more desirable or not.
But what the pundits are doing is taking a memo that deals specifically with "what do we do with children that grew up in the US or were born here" and claiming "this memo means that any child that jumps across the fence can never be send back and it is encouraging people to send their children into this country so that they can bring their families later".
Which goes against the actual memo, which goes against anything that ICE is saying, and which goes against the commercials that the USA is airing in South and Central American countries telling them "We do not have an amnesty program for children. If you send them here they can die on the way and they will be send back anyway!".
But you know, feth Obama.
Dream Act was not passed by Congress.
DACA
Advance Parole
Establish Immigration Laws was bypassed concerning who can be deported and who cannot be deported.
Edit
We're talking Boehner lawsuit against POTUS.
A lot of us believe he be using Article Two Section Three.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The bold part is the trigger. He is not enforcing Immigration Laws that are establish and did an end run on them.
d-usa wrote: And the Executive has always had discretion in how to execute the laws.
Hence, Executive Orders.
Correct. Though you now have an Executive Order that trumps Federal Laws establish by Congress. What Boehner is doing is getting the Judicial to Adjudicate.
Two cases
Only two Presidential executive orders have been overturned by the courts. The first involved a 1952 presidential order issued by President Truman, Executive Order 1034, placing the nation's steel mills under federal control in order to prevent labor strikes from affecting steel production and thus hurting the national economy.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Truman Order was unconstitutional because it overstepped the boundary between executive and legislative powers, holding that President's power to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution.[2].
The second executive order overturned by a court was issued by President Clinton. Executive Order 12954 prevented the federal government from entering into contracts with organizations that hire replacements for striking employees.[3] The court determined that the Order was regulatory in nature and preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees employers the right to hire permanent replacements.[4]
Neither of those cases have anything to do with what you are talking about.
So far you are claiming that the order from years ago has to do with that is happening today (which it doesn't).
You claim that prioritizing who to deport trumps federal laws (it doesn't).
And now you say that they are unconstitutional by comparing them to cases that have absolutely nothing in common with the whole immigration thing you are talking about. Nationalizing steel mills has nothing to do with deciding deportation priorities, and refusing to enter contracts with scap companies has nothing to do with deportation priorities.
d-usa wrote: Neither of those cases have anything to do with what you are talking about.
Just showing as I mention before that Boehner might be trying this route
So far you are claiming that the order from years ago has to do with that is happening today (which it doesn't).
The memo is still in effect.
You claim that prioritizing who to deport trumps federal laws (it doesn't).
Advance Parole I posted earlier prevents deportation on majority of illegals. DACA prevents deportation of kids. Those two Act within the Executive branch bypasses Federal Laws that are suppose to be enforced. The Morton memo clarifies those who can "legally" stay within the US concerning ICE. The Illegal Alien is then issued a Court Date with a Immigration Judge and is expected to return. They are not held in detention anymore awaiting their Court date. They are released.
And now you say that they are unconstitutional by comparing them to cases that have absolutely nothing in common with the whole immigration thing you are talking about. Nationalizing steel mills has nothing to do with deciding deportation priorities, and refusing to enter contracts with scap companies has nothing to do with deportation priorities.
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Truman Order was unconstitutional because it overstepped the boundary between executive and legislative powers, holding that President's power to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution.[2].
I gave this as an example.The POTUS gave an Executive Order that bypasses Federal laws. The Executive Order is enforced within the admin agency and not the Federal Law that was established by Congress.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me further clarified on the Morton memo's
I would love some clarification from you about how an execituve order that gives leeway for not deporting children that have spend a majority of their time or were born in the US somehow resulted in the sudden influx of children this year or how it somehow applied to the current situation.
Doesn't do anything to back up your initial point, it actually refutes it with this:
Priority 2. Recent illegal entrants
In order to maintain control at the border and at ports of entry, and to avoid a return to the prior practice commonly and historically referred to as "catch and release," the removal of aliens who have recently violated immigration controls at the border, at ports ofentry, or through the knowing abuse of the visa and visa waiver programs shall be a priority.
If you just came in, you are on a higher priority list to get send back home.
Which also refutes your argument that the current crisis has anything to do with those decisions:
•the person's length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status; •the circumstances ofthe person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly ifthe alien came to the United States as a young child; •the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced
Which once again deals with children that have lived in the US and are for all cultural purposes "americans" and have no cultural (and often no linguistic) connection to the country that they are deported to.
Which, once again, doesn't have anything to do with the current influx of children which you claim is the result of these decisions. In fact it once again says the oppositve of a blanket policy for children:
This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety. Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons. This process will also allow additional federal enforcement resources to be focused on border security and the removal of public safety threats.
Do you even read the crap you post? Once again: you claim that the decisions made in 2011 regarding minors somehow resulted in the current influx of children because it promotes some sort of amnesty for children once they managed to get into the border and as proof you gave a document that states
-ame to the United States under the age of sixteen; is not above the age ofthirty; has continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding the date of this memoran
This memo does jack to back up your point that the current crisis has to do with these decisions.
Once again, has jack-gak to do with the current situation:
-who is a child, has been in the US for more than five years, and is either in school or has successfully completed High School. -who came to the US under the age of 16, has been in the US for more than five years, has completed High School...
1) Again it has nothing to do with the current situation of illegal children because it says:
has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date ofthis memorandum;[i]
So it doesn't affect any children that have been here less than 5 years back in 2012, and doesn't affect A SINGLE DAMN CHILD that came here afterwards.
And it doesn't bypass established Federal laws. It prioritizes which laws to enforce.
Kind of like a traffic cop that decides not to pull you over for speeding because he is responding to a 911 call where somebody is breaking into a house.
Which is the same memo as above. Which none of them back up any of the points you made, Which are:
1) Obama's decisions to grand amnesty and backdoor implement the Dream Act encourages the current influx of children into the US. - Applies only to children that have already been here 5 years. - Doesn't apply to children that have come here after the memo went into effect 2) Obama's decisions are violating immigration law. - Handing out green cards and citizenship to people that are supposed to be deported might be violating laws passed by congress. - Deciding which group to prioritize doesn't. Or else you would have cops telling you "Hey, Jihadin, sorry your family is in the process of getting murdered. But the law is that you have to have a working taillight so I'm going to finish writing you a ticket before trying to stop any murders, mkay."
Jihadin wrote: . D-USA mention what like it seems only one was known.
What in the holy hell?
YOU are the one that claimed that Imigration decisions in 2011 somehow created what is happening now. YOU are the one who posted that memo. YOU are the one who claimed that it says what you think it says.
How does your brain take gak that you posted and somehow decide that I'm the one who mentioned them?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: To think that someone would act outside partisan interests and favour restoring the system of checks and balances so that any POTUS cannot make end arounds of Congress is indeed an amazing thing.
And now you're assuming the only way to restore checks and balances is through this proposal by Boehner.
I'll just explain this briefly - if a member of congress was genuinely interested in restoring checks on the executive this isn't how it would be done. And more importantly Boehner knows that, as does everyone who is looking at this in even a slightly sensible way.
This is just cheap, headline grabbing politics, the worst kind of partisan politics.
It's pretty easy for Congress to use the existing checks and balances to reign in Obama and his executive orders.
The only reason the constitutional system of checks and balances isn't working is because Congress can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to actually do their jobs.
Like this immigration crap. If the legislature doesn't like the way that the executive prioritizes enforcement of the laws they pass they can pass additional laws that prioritize spending on things that they think the executive prioritizes on.
So if the legislature has a problem with Obama prioritizing violent criminals for deportation over children that have been here 5 years or longer then they can pass a law that says that this funding for ICE can only be spend on processes that focus on deporting children that have been here 5 years or longer.
WarOne wrote: But to a Republican base that eats and spits fire, this is a great way to rally the troops and confuse the real issues to skew in their favor.
Absolutely. Thing is, if Dreadclaw69 or one of the other usual suspects were to say that this is partisan schlock but that's okay because it's worth it to further the cause by firing up the base, then that'd be fine. I mean, on one level I kind of like the theatre of politics and the way arguments and attacks are crafted by one side or the other, and while this isn't a particular clever example it also isn't dangerous or damaging to the running of government*, and so on that level it's just part of the game.
But to argue that this is a genuine attempt to restore limits on the president... well that's just silly and needs to be called as such.
*Unlike say, the debt ceiling nonsense, which crossed the line past political theatre and in to actually harming the proper governance of the country.
WarOne wrote: But to a Republican base that eats and spits fire, this is a great way to rally the troops and confuse the real issues to skew in their favor.
Absolutely. Thing is, if Dreadclaw69 or one of the other usual suspects were to say that this is partisan schlock but that's okay because it's worth it to further the cause by firing up the base, then that'd be fine. I mean, on one level I kind of like the theatre of politics and the way arguments and attacks are crafted by one side or the other, and while this isn't a particular clever example it also isn't dangerous or damaging to the running of government*, and so on that level it's just part of the game.
But to argue that this is a genuine attempt to restore limits on the president... well that's just silly and needs to be called as such.
*Unlike say, the debt ceiling nonsense, which crossed the line past political theatre and in to actually harming the proper governance of the country.
I call dibs on being Kevin Spacey.
It's a stupid political theater... if they truly wanted change, it'd be easy to psuh it. If Reid won't put it up to vote in the Senate, then it's on him.
Trying to actually use their checks-and-balances won't accomplish anything other that reinforcing the known "congress can get nothing done" stereotype.
Using an ineffective judicial approach lets him pretend that he stood up against evil Obama while also complaining about evil activist judges refusing to stand up for the constitution.
would love some clarification from you about how an execituve order that gives leeway for not deporting children that have spend a majority of their time or were born in the US somehow resulted in the sudden influx of children this year or how it somehow applied to the current situation.
Look up DACA . It was implemented in July 2012
Doesn't do anything to back up your initial point, it actually refutes it with this:
Priority 2. Recent illegal entrants
In order to maintain control at the border and at ports of entry, and to avoid a return to the prior
practice commonly and historically referred to as "catch and release," the removal of aliens who
have recently violated immigration controls at the border, at ports ofentry, or through the
knowing abuse of the visa and visa waiver programs shall be a priority.
If you just came in, you are on a higher priority list to get send back home.
Miss the levels?
For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel should refer to the following new offense levels defined by the Secure Communities Program, with Level l and Level 2 offenders receiving principal attention. These new Secure Communities levels are given in rank order and shall replace the existing Secure Communities levels of offenses
Priority 1, Priority 2, follow by Priority 3. List of Priority. The release of Illegal Immigrants who do not fall within those three Priority
Which also refutes your argument that the current crisis has anything to do with those decisions:
•the person's length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
•the circumstances ofthe person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly ifthe alien came to the United States as a young child;
•the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced
Which once again deals with children that have lived in the US and are for all cultural purposes "americans" and have no cultural (and often no linguistic) connection to the country that they are deported to.
Miss this part?
ICE attorneys may exercise prosecutorial discretion in any immigration removal proceeding before EOIR, on referral of the case from EOIR to the Attorney General, or during the pendency ,of an appeal to the federal courts, including a proceeding proposed or initiated by CBP or USCIS. If an ICE attorney decides to exercise prosecutorial discretion to dismiss, suspend, or close a particular case or matter, the attorney should notify the relevant ERO, HSI, CBP, or USCIS charging official about the decision. In the event there is a dispute between the charging official and the ICE attorney regarding the attorney's decision to exercise prosecutorial diScretion, the ICE Chief Counsel should attempt to resolve the dispute with the local supervisors of the charging officiaL If local resolution is not possible, the matter should be elevated to the Deputy Director of ICE for resolution
This effect Level 1, 2 , 3 and all other cases. They can determined who gets to see the Immigration Judger
Which also doesn't apply to the current influx of children without parents
Not really It effect those that are caught within the border. It effects an Illegal Alien that:
individuals engaging in a protected activity related to civil or other rights (for example, union organizing or complaining to authorities about employment discrimination or housing conditions) who may be in a non-frivolous dispute with an employer, landlord, or contractor.
The ones above that are good
Which, once again, doesn't have anything to do with the current influx of children which you claim is the result of these decisions. In fact it once again says the oppositve of a blanket policy for children:
This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety. Immigration judges will be able
to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons. This
process will also allow additional federal enforcement resources to be focused on border security
and the removal of public safety threats.
Totally missed the Flag
Do you even read the crap you post? Once again: you claim that the decisions made in 2011 regarding minors somehow resulted in the current influx of children because it promotes some sort of amnesty for children once they managed to get into the border and as proof you gave a document that states
-ame to the United States under the age of sixteen; is not above the age ofthirty; has continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding the date of this memoran
This memo does jack to back up your point that the current crisis has to do with these decisions.
The "Flag" and DACA. Miss the gradual rise of unaccompanied minors?
Which doesn't do anything to back up your point. Prosecuters have always had discretion in deciding which cases to pursue
It bypasses the Immigration Judge. Use to have been all Illegal Aliens have to stand before the Immigration Judge. Now it leaves the decision to the lawyers
1) Again it has nothing to do with the current situation of illegal children because it says:
has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date ofthis memorandum;[i]
So it doesn't affect any children that have been here less than 5 years back in 2012, and doesn't affect A SINGLE DAMN CHILD that came here afterwards.
And it doesn't bypass established Federal laws. It prioritizes which laws to enforce.
Kind of like a traffic cop that decides not to pull you over for speeding because he is responding to a 911 call where somebody is breaking into a house
DACA.
"We are going to prioritize apprehenting and deporting violent criminals"
Obama, what a monster...
Missed this
Given limited enforcement resources, three or more convictions for minor traffic misdemeanors or other relatively minor misdemeanors alone should not trigger a detainer unless the convictions reflect a clear and continuing danger to others or disregard for the law.
ICE will not come pick up a Illegal Alien being held by LEA for lesser charges
Which is the same memo as above. Which none of them back up any of the points you made, Which are:
1) Obama's decisions to grand amnesty and backdoor implement the Dream Act encourages the current influx of children into the US.
2) Obama's decisions are violating immigration law
Think you need to look up Dream Act, that was not passed by Congress and compare the Executive Order (DACA) and memo's issued by Morton
This guidance limits the use of detainers to individuals who meet the department's enforcement priorities and restricts the use of detainers against individuals arrested for minor misdemeanor offenses such as traffic offenses and other petty crimes, helping to ensure that available resources are focused on apprehending felons, repeat offenders and other ICE priorities. It is applicable to all ICE enforcement programs, including Secure Communities.
This shuts down pick up for any illegal Aliens caught by LEA unless they fall in a guide line.
What in the holy hell?
YOU are the one that claimed that Imigration decisions in 2011 somehow created what is happening now.
YOU are the one who posted that memo.
YOU are the one who claimed that it says what you think it says.
How does your brain take gak that you posted and somehow decide that I'm the one who mentioned them?
Then I must have misread what you posted
But what the pundits are doing is taking a memo that deals specifically with "what do we do with children that grew up in the US or were born here" and claiming "this memo means that any child that jumps across the fence can never be send back and it is encouraging people to send their children into this country so that they can bring their families later".
Indicating one memo. If
I've a feeling though not all of Mormont memo's were known or previously discussed. D-USA mention what like it seems only one was known.
Makes you go on the attack
How does your brain take gak that you posted and somehow decide that I'm the one who mentioned them?
Stay Frosty
Edit
Missed your fist question. What's your explanation of the infux of unaccompanied children crossing the border D-USA.
Edit II
Forgot to mention to Ouze. USCIS cannot be defunded for it is a "Fee Based" agency
sebster wrote: Absolutely. Thing is, if Dreadclaw69 or one of the other usual suspects were to say that this is partisan schlock but that's okay because it's worth it to further the cause by firing up the base, then that'd be fine. I mean, on one level I kind of like the theatre of politics and the way arguments and attacks are crafted by one side or the other, and while this isn't a particular clever example it also isn't dangerous or damaging to the running of government*, and so on that level it's just part of the game.
But to argue that this is a genuine attempt to restore limits on the president... well that's just silly and needs to be called as such.
*Unlike say, the debt ceiling nonsense, which crossed the line past political theatre and in to actually harming the proper governance of the country.
I would, but as it stands the fact of the matter is that this is coming from a bi-partisan group. Until the Democrats involved distance themselves, or make their opposition to the lawsuit known, then it remains a bi-partisan action. Given the intense partisanship in US politics if the Democrats disagreed with it I have little doubt that they would have distanced themselves from Boehner's position.
And before you forget, sometimes you cannot rule out self interest. Some people are nervous about the mid-terms rather than the party line.
whembly wrote: It's a stupid political theater... if they truly wanted change, it'd be easy to psuh it. If Reid won't put it up to vote in the Senate, then it's on him.
And more to the point, if there really was a terrible, horrible breach of the power of the president, then even in these partisan times congress would get its gak together and use their legislative power to prevent that.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I would, but as it stands the fact of the matter is that this is coming from a bi-partisan group.
No, you don't even know what this is. You didn't even read the article in the OP, did you? "Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President."
This hasn't 'come' from the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, because there hasn't actually been a vote yet. In fact that group hasn't actually met at all since 2011.
The argument, that you seem to have gotten yourself quite confused about, is that if it did go to the BLAG then it would pass three Republican votes to two Democrats, because that's the make up of the BLAG. Because that's exactly how it played out when BLAG last met in 2011.
And your call that those Democrats might just be okay with this... do you even fething know who they are? It's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You honestly want to claim they're on Boehner's side in thinking this is a necessary check on the powers of the president. You honestly want to count on those two crossing the floor in order to claim this is bi-partisan?
There is really no point in my replying to stuff you post when it is pretty clear to anybody that you either don't read anything you post or don't understand it.
But just to clarify answer these two simple questions:
1) Do you believe that a pollice officer is violating the law when he ignores that you are speeding and chooses to deal with a rape instead?
2) Do you honestly belive that every single memo you posted that specifically states "this deals with children that have been in the country for at least 5 years prior to this memo being issued in 2011" is an amnesty program for children that have been in the country for 1 day in 2014?
Missed your fist question. What's your explanation of the infux of unaccompanied children crossing the border D-USA.
Children fleeing poverty and gang wars trying to find a better life while also thinking (mistakenly ) that we have some sort of amnesty program for children despite the state department actively buying advertisement on central American radio and TV stations to inform them that we do not have an amnesty program and that their children will be send back once they are captured if they even survive the journey here.
Of course it doesn't help that we have idiots on TV who keep on claiming that Obama has issued amnesty to everyone and is inviting all the world's children to climb the fence and swim the river to freedom.
I don't see how the Morton Memo contradicts DACA. Indeed, DACA seems to reiterate, and clarify, the points laid out in the Morton Memo.
And here is the quick and dirty on DACA:
A grant of deferred removal action does not confer lawful immigration status, alter an individual’s existing immigration status, or provide a path to citizenship. It does not do anything in violation of any congressional laws or action other than choose not to enforce it with this group and focusing on enforcing it on another group as well.
Individuals who request deferred action must have:
- Been under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012
- Arrived to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday
- Continuously resided in the United States from June 15, 2007 (last five years) to [June 15, 2012]
- Been physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, as well as at the time of requesting deferred action from USCIS;
- Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or had any lawful immigration status expired on or before June 15, 2012
- Been in school at the time of application, or have already graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or have obtained a general education development (GED) -certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces
- Not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
To pretend that DACA has even a shred of authority over children that came here in the last 2 years and 15 days is just stupid.
I don't see how the Morton Memo contradicts DACA. Indeed, DACA seems to reiterate, and clarify, the points laid out in the Morton Memo.
I never said, I think, Morton Memo was counterproductive to DACA
Morton Memo's are the new guide lines within ICE to enforce DACA.
Morton Memo's are the new guide lines for deportation.
DACA was not approved by Congress
DACA was an Executive Order within the Executive Branch
Unaccompanied Minors are coming here are thinking DACA
Edit
Upon arrival they are taking to their families/relatives living either illegal or legally within the US. They cannot be deported due to policies within (Morton memo's) ICE.
Unaccompanied Minors fall under "Refugee Status" and also qualify for protection due to Human Trafficking laws.
So they are coming for DACA but fall under another policy.
sebster wrote: And your call that those Democrats might just be okay with this... do you even fething know who they are? It's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You honestly want to claim they're on Boehner's side in thinking this is a necessary check on the powers of the president. You honestly want to count on those two crossing the floor in order to claim this is bi-partisan?
Fantastic. Then they'll definitely come out as against this and expose it as partisanship. But until they do...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Fantastic. Then they'll definitely come out as against this and expose it as partisanship. But until they do...
... you'll apparently try to claim that Pelosi and Reid must support this.
I mean, Boehner is playing to an audience, so it makes sense that he'd say something that he knows is ridiculous to score points with the right part of the electorate, but why would you bother to pretend that nonsense is true?
Thinking Boehner playing on Article Three Section 2 to get his lawsuit into court
he judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
There is really no point in my replying to stuff you post when it is pretty clear to anybody that you either don't read anything you post or don't understand it.
But just to clarify answer these two simple questions:
1) Do you believe that a pollice officer is violating the law when he ignores that you are speeding and chooses to deal with a rape instead?
2) Do you honestly belive that every single memo you posted that specifically states "this deals with children that have been in the country for at least 5 years prior to this memo being issued in 2011" is an amnesty program for children that have been in the country for 1 day in 2014?
Missed your fist question. What's your explanation of the infux of unaccompanied children crossing the border D-USA.
Children fleeing poverty and gang wars trying to find a better life while also thinking (mistakenly ) that we have some sort of amnesty program for children despite the state department actively buying advertisement on central American radio and TV stations to inform them that we do not have an amnesty program and that their children will be send back once they are captured if they even survive the journey here.
Of course it doesn't help that we have idiots on TV who keep on claiming that Obama has issued amnesty to everyone and is inviting all the world's children to climb the fence and swim the river to freedom.
I don't see how the Morton Memo contradicts DACA. Indeed, DACA seems to reiterate, and clarify, the points laid out in the Morton Memo.
And here is the quick and dirty on DACA:
A grant of deferred removal action does not confer lawful immigration status, alter an individual’s existing immigration status, or provide a path to citizenship. It does not do anything in violation of any congressional laws or action other than choose not to enforce it with this group and focusing on enforcing it on another group as well.
Individuals who request deferred action must have:
- Been under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012
- Arrived to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday
- Continuously resided in the United States from June 15, 2007 (last five years) to [June 15, 2012]
- Been physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, as well as at the time of requesting deferred action from USCIS;
- Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or had any lawful immigration status expired on or before June 15, 2012
- Been in school at the time of application, or have already graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or have obtained a general education development (GED) -certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces
- Not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
To pretend that DACA has even a shred of authority over children that came here in the last 2 years and 15 days is just stupid.
Connect it with '"Advance Parole" for those in DACA. Also the Unaccompanied Minors who can do "Advance Parole" mention on page 1
Also since your hammering me on my inability to read a memo. You might apply it to yourself to. Advance Parole started 22 Mar 13
Upon arrival they are taking to their families/relatives living either illegal or legally within the US. They cannot be deported due to policies within (Morton memo's) ICE. Unaccompanied Minors fall under "Refugee Status" and also qualify for protection due to Human Trafficking laws.
So somehow Obama and his Executive Orders are circumventing congress as evidenced by complying with the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 Section 212 passed without any objection by Boehmer?
SEC. 212. INTERIM ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 107(b)(1) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (E)(i)(I), by inserting ‘‘or is unable to cooperate with such a request due to physical or psychological trauma’’ before the semicolon; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(F) ELIGIBILITY FOR INTERIM ASSISTANCE OF CHILDREN.— ‘‘ (i) DETERMINATION.—Upon receiving credible information that a child described in subparagraph (C)(ii)(I) who is seeking assistance under this paragraph may have been subjected to a severe form of trafficking in persons, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promptly determine if the child is eligible for interim assistance under this paragraph. The Secretary shall have exclusive authority to make interim eligibility determinations under this clause. A determination of interim eligibility under this clause shall not affect the independent determination whether a child is a victim of a severe form of trafficking. ‘‘ (ii) NOTIFICATION.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall notify the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than 24 hours after all interim eligibility determinations have been made under clause (i).‘‘ (iii) DURATION.—Assistance under this paragraph may be provided to individuals determined to be eligible under clause (i) for a period of up to 90 days and may be extended for an additional 30 days. (iv) LONG-TERM ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN.— ‘‘ (I) ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.—Before the expiration of the period for interim assistance under clause (iii), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine if the child referred to in clause (i) is eligible for assistance under this paragraph. ‘ (II) CONSULTATION.—In making a determination under subclause (I), the Secretary shall consult with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and nongovernmental organizations with expertise on victims of severe form of trafficking. ‘‘ (III) LETTER OF ELIGIBILITY.—If the Secretary, after receiving information the Secretary believes, taken as a whole, indicates that the child is eligible for assistance under this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue a letter of eligibility. The Secretary may not require that the child cooperate with law enforcement as a condition for receiving such letter of eligibility. ‘‘(G) NOTIFICATION OF CHILDREN FOR INTERIM ASSIST-ANCE.—Not later than 24 hours after a Federal, State, or local official discovers that a person who is under 18 years of age may be a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the official shall notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services to facilitate the provision of interim assistance under subparagraph (F).’’. (b) TRAINING OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.—Section 107(c)(4) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(4)) is amended— (1) by inserting ‘‘, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services,’’ after ‘‘the Department of State’’; and (2) by inserting ‘‘, including juvenile victims. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide training to State and local officials to improve the identification and protection of such victims’’ before the period at the end.
But just to clarify answer these two simple questions:
1) Do you believe that a pollice officer is violating the law when he ignores that you are speeding and chooses to deal with a rape instead?
2) Do you honestly belive that every single memo you posted that specifically states "this deals with children that have been in the country for at least 5 years prior to this memo being issued in 2011" is an amnesty program for children that have been in the country for 1 day in 2014?
Connect it with '"Advance Parole" for those in DACA. Also the Unaccompanied Minors who can do "Advance Parole" mention on page 1 Also since your hammering me on my inability to read a memo. You might apply it to yourself to.
Go ahead and answer Question 1 and Question 2.
And I'm just going to ask Question 3 and 4:
3) What do you think "advance parole" actually is and how does it circumvent laws passed by congress? 4) Who do you think "advance parole" actually applies to.
Advance Parole started 22 Mar 13
Which is relevant how? Does it change who is covered under DACA?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As has every politician before him, from every party that has ever existed.
Uh huh, and I assume if you're smart enough to recognise that, then I'm left to assume that you didn't repeat any of the nonsense from all those politicians before. And yet this time you did, and I'm asking why.
To repeat the question, why did you claim that this move was bi-partisan and that you would continue to believe it was bi-partisan until a democratic member of the committee (which hasn't even met on the issue yet) came out and stated they weren't in favour of the issue, and just for fun did you think it was Pelosi or Reid who was more likely to support this?
Upon arrival they are taking to their families/relatives living either illegal or legally within the US. They cannot be deported due to policies within (Morton memo's) ICE.
Unaccompanied Minors fall under "Refugee Status" and also qualify for protection due to Human Trafficking laws.
So somehow Obama and his Executive Orders are circumventing congress as evidenced by complying with the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 Section 212 passed without any objection by Boehmer?
No idea why your challenging this since there was established laws. Thanks for clarifying for others. I will mention the money paid to "Coyotes" by parents on some to bring them across the border.
SEC. 212. INTERIM ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 107(b)(1) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (E)(i)(I), by inserting ‘‘or is unable to cooperate with such a request due to physical or psychological trauma’’ before the semicolon; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(F) ELIGIBILITY FOR INTERIM ASSISTANCE OF CHILDREN.— ‘‘
(i) DETERMINATION.—Upon receiving credible information that a child described in subparagraph (C)(ii)(I) who is seeking assistance under this paragraph may have been subjected to a severe form of trafficking in persons, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promptly determine if the child is eligible for interim assistance under this paragraph. The Secretary shall have exclusive authority to make interim eligibility determinations under this clause. A determination of interim eligibility under this clause shall not affect the independent determination whether a child is a victim of a severe form of trafficking. ‘‘
(ii) NOTIFICATION.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall notify the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than 24 hours after all interim eligibility determinations have been made under clause (i).‘‘
(iii) DURATION.—Assistance under this paragraph may be provided to individuals determined to be eligible under clause (i) for a period of up to 90 days and may be extended for an additional 30 days.
(iv) LONG-TERM ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN.— ‘‘
(I) ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.—Before the expiration of the period for interim assistance under clause (iii), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine if the child referred to in clause (i) is eligible for assistance under this paragraph. ‘
(II) CONSULTATION.—In making a determination under subclause (I), the Secretary shall consult with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and nongovernmental organizations with expertise on victims of severe form of trafficking. ‘‘
(III) LETTER OF ELIGIBILITY.—If the Secretary, after receiving information the Secretary believes, taken as a whole, indicates that the child is eligible for assistance under this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue a letter of eligibility. The Secretary may not require that the child cooperate with law enforcement as a condition for receiving such letter of eligibility. ‘‘(G) NOTIFICATION OF CHILDREN FOR INTERIM ASSIST-ANCE.—Not later than 24 hours after a Federal, State, or local official discovers that a person who is under 18 years of age may be a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the official shall notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services to facilitate the provision of interim assistance under subparagraph (F).’’.
(b) TRAINING OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.—Section 107(c)(4) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(4)) is amended— (1) by inserting ‘‘, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services,’’ after ‘‘the Department of State’’; and (2) by inserting ‘‘, including juvenile victims. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide training to State and local officials to improve the identification and protection of such victims’’ before the period at the end.
But just to clarify answer these two simple questions:
1) Do you believe that a pollice officer is violating the law when he ignores that you are speeding and chooses to deal with a rape instead?
Stick with Immigration. Because we all drive over the speed limit and we never know what response a LEO is going to. Nice try though
2) Do you honestly belive that every single memo you posted that specifically states "this deals with children that have been in the country for at least 5 years prior to this memo being issued in 2011" is an amnesty program for children that have been in the country for 1 day in 2014?
You answered this for me already about DACA On the memo's I showed the other effects that you did not get being you were all on DACA.
Connect it with '"Advance Parole" for those in DACA. Also the Unaccompanied Minors who can do "Advance Parole" mention on page 1
Also since your hammering me on my inability to read a memo. You might apply it to yourself to.
Go ahead and answer Question 1 and Question 2.
And I'm just going to ask Question 3 and 4:
3) What do you think "advance parole" actually is and how does it circumvent laws passed by congress?
4) Who do you think "advance parole" actually applies to.
Advance Parole started 22 Mar 13
Which is relevant how? Does it change who is covered under DACA?
A re-entry Permit for the individual that can leave and return to the US
Also can be filled out to allow a non admissible individual into the US. Which means the individual under DACA and/or refugee/humanitarian code can fill out the form to bring additional family members to the US.
Its a form of "Anchor Baby"
Advance Parole for Individuals outside the United States
If you are applying for an Advance Parole Document for a person who is outside the United States, you must
attach
(1)
A complete description of the urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reason for which an Advance
Parole Document is requested and include copies of any evidence you wish to be considered, which indicate
the length of time for which the parole is requested;
(2)
If an Advance Parole Document is requested for medical reasons, evidence from medical professionals that
establishes the medical need, a statement of how and by whom medical care, transportation, housing, and other
expenses and subsistence needs will be met;
(3)
An Affidavit of Support (Form I-134), with evidence of the sponsor's occupation and ability to provide
necessary support;
(4)
A statement explaining why a U.S. visa cannot be obtained, including when and where attempts were made to
obtain a visa, or an explanation of why a visa was not sought to enter the United States;
(5)
A statement explaining why a waiver of inadmissibility cannot be obtained to allow issuance of a visa,
including when and where attempts were made to obtain a waiver, and a copy of any DHS decision on your
waiver request, or an explanation of why a waiver has not been sought; and
(6)
A copy of any decision on an immigrant petition filed for the person seeking to enter the United States, and
evidence regarding any pending immigrant petition.
$360 Fee but waivable
Edit
Individual under DACA status can apply for it.
Individual, Unaccompanied Minor, can also apply for it.
Edit II
"Coyote" Organizations are working off the misinterpretation of DACA tto collect payments to smuggle some unaccompanied minors across the border.
So DACA doesn't cover anybody that came here after July 2012.
And Advance Parole for Daca doesn't cover anybody here after July 2012.
So neither of those have anything to do with the current crisis and neither of which violate any federal law.
And Advance Parole for people that are not already in the US is very temporary, hard to get, and is specifically authorized by Federal Law that was passed by congress. So how is Obama violating federal law here?
How is the fact that Coyotes lie to people to make money off them Obama's fault?
And you still have not told us if you think that a cop that doesn't pull you over for a broken tail light has broken the law, why you think Obama is violating federal laws by complying with federal laws that Boehmer supported and Bush signed.
You type a lot, but none of it backs up what you say.
sebster wrote: Uh huh, and I assume if you're smart enough to recognise that, then I'm left to assume that you didn't repeat any of the nonsense from all those politicians before. And yet this time you did, and I'm asking why.
To repeat the question, why did you claim that this move was bi-partisan and that you would continue to believe it was bi-partisan until a democratic member of the committee (which hasn't even met on the issue yet) came out and stated they weren't in favour of the issue, and just for fun did you think it was Pelosi or Reid who was more likely to support this?
Well Sebster I assume that you are smart enough to recognize that if something does get passed by a bi-partisan panel that the typical view is that it is a bi-partisan measure until such times as someone says otherwise (typically members from one party who say that they were out voted)
d-usa wrote: So DACA doesn't cover anybody that came here after July 2012.
And Advance Parole for Daca doesn't cover anybody here after July 2012.
An individual that falls under DACA can still apply Advance Parole for those outside the US as can a Unaccompanied Minor. The form will more likely be revised 3 Mar 16 or it expires.
So neither of those have anything to do with the current crisis and neither of which violate any federal law.
You mention already the influx of Unaccompanied Minors thinking DACA. Morton Memo giving new guide lines within ICE
And Advance Parole for people that are not already in the US is very temporary, hard to get, and is specifically authorized by Federal Law that was passed by congress. So how is Obama violating federal law here?
Once here cannot be deported because they do not fall under the priority of ICE that was establish by the Mormon Memo's. Advance parole is decided by Immigration Lawyers and their Superiors. Which is sent to USCIS for adjudication which ensures everything is correct on the form. They are not hard to "get". There is no immigration judge involve to approve it
How is the fact that Coyotes lie to people to make money off them Obama's fault?
False impression they fall under DACA. Once arrive they fall under what was discussed above. Both are eligible to apply for Advance Parole
And you still have not told us if you think that a cop that doesn't pull you over for a broken tail light has broken the law, why you think Obama is violating federal laws by complying with federal laws that Boehmer supported and Bush signed.
Because there is no limit for an individual to apply for Advance Parole. Refer to question 3. above
You type a lot, but none of it backs up what you say.
Now take all I type and put it together.
Edit
I am not going to answer the cop question being it went from speeding to going to a rape call to a broking tail light now.
Well Sebster I assume that you are smart enough to recognize that if something does get passed by a bi-partisan panel that the typical view is that it is a bi-partisan measure until such times as someone says otherwise (typically members from one party who say that they were out voted)
I believe that the substance of your disagreement with Sebster is that he is saying otherwise.
d-usa wrote: So DACA doesn't cover anybody that came here after July 2012.
And Advance Parole for Daca doesn't cover anybody here after July 2012.
An individual that falls under DACA can still apply Advance Parole for those outside the US as can a Unaccompanied Minor. The form will more likely be revised 3 Mar 16 or it expires.
Which doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012.
So neither of those have anything to do with the current crisis and neither of which violate any federal law.
You mention already the influx of Unaccompanied Minors thinking DACA. Morton Memo giving new guide lines within ICE
Which doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012.
Unless he is a secret time traveler and traveled back to 2012 in his secret time machine to write a memo that doesn't affect the future at all.
And Advance Parole for people that are not already in the US is very temporary, hard to get, and is specifically authorized by Federal Law that was passed by congress. So how is Obama violating federal law here?
Once here cannot be deported because they do not fall under the priority of ICE that was establish by the Mormon Memo's. Advance parole is decided by Immigration Lawyers and their Superiors. Which is sent to USCIS for adjudication which ensures everything is correct on the form. They are not hard to "get". There is no immigration judge involve to approve it
You fail to answer how Obama is violating federal law by following federal law.
How is the fact that Coyotes lie to people to make money off them Obama's fault?
False impression they fall under DACA. Once arrive they fall under what was discussed above. Both are eligible to apply for Advance Parole
Nobody that has arrived here in the last two years falls under DACA. If Coyotes are telling people that they are they are lying to them, and that's not anything you can sue Obama over. If you believe that they fall under DACA then Boehmer can't sue Obama for your failure to understand what you are talking about.
And you still have not told us if you think that a cop that doesn't pull you over for a broken tail light has broken the law, why you think Obama is violating federal laws by complying with federal laws that Boehmer supported and Bush signed.
Because there is no limit for an individual to apply for Advance Parole. Refer to question 3. above
You type a lot, but none of it backs up what you say.
That statement doesn't make any sense.
Now take all I type and put it together.
Edit
I am not going to answer the cop question being it went from speeding to going to a rape call to a broking tail light now.
Take whatever scenario you want. A cop doesn't pull you over for speeding to respond to a murder rape instead. A cop doesn't pull you over for a broken tail-light to respond to a rape instead. A cop ignoring a lesser crime to respond to a higher priority crime. Are all of them violating the law.
You are the one making a lot of crazy claims here, would be nice if you could back up a single one of them. But none of your conclusions make much sense here.
Trying to keep up with your reality is giving me a headache though.
First. You do know Morton memo's are still in effect in ICE? If not then show me the memo's that takes precedence over them.
Which doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012
.
Show me the memo's that cancel out Morton memo's
hich doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012.
Unless he is a secret time traveler and traveled back to 2012 in his secret time machine to write a memo that doesn't affect the future at all.
Again. Show me the memo's that took out the guide lines that establish Morton memo's
You fail to answer how Obama is violating federal law by following federal law.
DACA/Advance Parole/Exploitation/Morton Memo's
Nobody that has arrived here in the last two years falls under DACA. If Coyotes are telling people that they are they are lying to them, and that's not anything you can sue Obama over. If you believe that they fall under DACA then Boehmer can't sue Obama for your failure to understand what you are talking about.
DACA/Advance Parole/Exploitation/Morton Memo's.
An individual under DACA can fill out as many Advance Paroles they can get away with. There is no limits on how many can be filled out. DACA Lawyers make the decisions due to Morton memo's.
Take whatever scenario you want. A cop doesn't pull you over for speeding to respond to a murder rape instead. A cop doesn't pull you over for a broken tail-light to respond to a rape instead. A cop ignoring a lesser crime to respond to a higher priority crime. Are all of them violating the law.
You are the one making a lot of crazy claims here, would be nice if you could back up a single one of them. But none of your conclusions make much sense here.
Trying to keep up with your reality is giving me a headache though.
Welcome to Immigration Laws. What you think is suppose to be is not. Connect the dots
DACA
Advance Parole (no limit) which has priority over Visa process and is quickly done.
Exploitation of Advance Parole
No deportation
Jihadin wrote: First. You do know Morton memo's are still in effect in ICE? If not then show me the memo's that takes precedence over them.
Which doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012
.
Show me the memo's that cancel out Morton memo's
You already posted it.
Protip #1: It's Morton's memos. Read everything I have posted about them and read the memos themselves and you will find what you seek.
hich doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012.
Unless he is a secret time traveler and traveled back to 2012 in his secret time machine to write a memo that doesn't affect the future at all.
Again. Show me the memo's that took out the guide lines that establish Morton memo's
You already posted them.
Protip #2: Really, read your own memos.
You fail to answer how Obama is violating federal law by following federal law.
DACA/Advance Parole/Exploitation/Morton Memo's
"How does Obama violate the law by following the law?"
"Because he follows the law!"
You are not giving any answers that make any sense...
Nobody that has arrived here in the last two years falls under DACA. If Coyotes are telling people that they are they are lying to them, and that's not anything you can sue Obama over. If you believe that they fall under DACA then Boehmer can't sue Obama for your failure to understand what you are talking about.
DACA/Advance Parole/Exploitation/Morton Memo's.
An individual under DACA can fill out as many Advance Paroles they can get away with. There is no limits on how many can be filled out. DACA Lawyers make the decisions due to Morton memo's.
Take whatever scenario you want. A cop doesn't pull you over for speeding to respond to a murder rape instead. A cop doesn't pull you over for a broken tail-light to respond to a rape instead. A cop ignoring a lesser crime to respond to a higher priority crime. Are all of them violating the law.
You are the one making a lot of crazy claims here, would be nice if you could back up a single one of them. But none of your conclusions make much sense here.
Trying to keep up with your reality is giving me a headache though.
Welcome to Immigration Laws. What you think is suppose to be is not. Connect the dots
They might be complicated, but not a damn thing you posted does anything you claim it does.
Maybe you are missing some dots that you think you are connecting?
DACA
Advance Parole (no limit) which has priority over Visa process and is quickly done.
Exploitation of Advance Parole
No deportation
Are A) not in violation of federal law and B) have nothing to do with what is happening now because it doesn't apply to anybody that arrived in the US after July 2012.
Your looking at Morton Memo for reference DACA. I posted earlier what the memo effected.
You made reference
Which doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012.
Unless he is a secret time traveler and traveled back to 2012 in his secret time machine to write a memo that doesn't affect the future at all.
Which is effecting the present and the future. I keep getting the impression you think Morton memo was a just for one time frame.
Individuals fall under DACA
Individuals who fall under DACA fill out Advance Parole for someone outside the US. Look at the guide lines required for someone to enter. No limitation on the amount of Advance Parole filed
Advance Parole document is reviewed by Immigration lawyer.
Immigration lawyer can decide if justification is good enough to warrant the individual in the Advance Parole can come to the US legally under Advance Parole
Sends to USCIS who ensures everything is correct
Individual arrives. time expires. Cannot be deported.
DACA/Advance parole is being exploited.
DACA recipients are priority for Advance Parole. Takes precedent over Visa
Jihadin wrote: Your looking at Morton Memo for reference DACA. I posted earlier what the memo effected.
You made reference
Which doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012.
Unless he is a secret time traveler and traveled back to 2012 in his secret time machine to write a memo that doesn't affect the future at all.
Which is effecting the present and the future. I keep getting the impression you think Morton memo was a just for one time frame.
Individuals fall under DACA
Individuals who fall under DACA fill out Advance Parole for someone outside the US. Look at the guide lines required for someone to enter. No limitation on the amount of Advance Parole filed
Advance Parole document is reviewed by Immigration lawyer.
Immigration lawyer can decide if justification is good enough to warrant the individual in the Advance Parole can come to the US legally under Advance Parole
Sends to USCIS who ensures everything is correct
Individual arrives. time expires. Cannot be deported.
DACA/Advance parole is being exploited.
DACA recipients are priority for Advance Parole. Takes precedent over Visa
Which affects anybody that entered the US after July 2012 how?
Because that is what your initial claim was: That all of this somehow resulted in all these kids coming across the border now and that is why Boehmer is suing.
BREAKING: White House: Boehner won't set immigration vote this year; Obama to pursue changes on his own.
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 30, 2014
He's lost one battle, now he's racing off to fight another
I pulled that off my twitter feed and... I know it's the AP... but, I seriously doubt it's framed this way.
Seriously, think about this: Is Obama claiming that Congress' choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power, and then that power flows precisely to the President????
Mr. President, if you want Immigration Reform so badly, work with Congress. Give them something they can't refuse... y'know? Negotiate!
BREAKING: White House: Boehner won't set immigration vote this year; Obama to pursue changes on his own.
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 30, 2014
He's lost one battle, now he's racing off to fight another
I pulled that off my twitter feed and... I know it's the AP... but, I seriously doubt it's framed this way.
Seriously, think about this: Is Obama claiming that Congress' choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power, and then that power flows precisely to the President????
Mr. President, if you want Immigration Reform so badly, work with Congress. Give them something they can't refuse... y'know? Negotiate!
Nobody on the Republican side wants to negotiate. They can't bear to give Obama anything close to a win for anything, ever. Congress is a non-starter.
whembly wrote: I pulled that off my twitter feed and... I know it's the AP... but, I seriously doubt it's framed this way.
Seriously, think about this: Is Obama claiming that Congress' choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power, and then that power flows precisely to the President????
Mr. President, if you want Immigration Reform so badly, work with Congress. Give them something they can't refuse... y'know? Negotiate!
It's their fault, President Barack Obama said Monday in blaming Republican inaction on immigration reform for escalating problems including a surge of undocumented children crossing the border from Mexico.
At a hastily scheduled Rose Garden appearance, Obama said House Speaker John Boehner told him last week that the chamber's GOP majority he leads will continue blocking a vote on a Senate-passed immigration bill.
In response, Obama said he was starting "a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress," adding that he directed his team to recommend steps he can take this summer and that he would then act on those steps "without delay."
"The failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, is bad for our economy, is bad for our future," the President said. "America cannot wait forever for them to ask."
Obama to ask Congress for emergency funds
Obama's statement sought to vilify Republicans for the failure to get congressional approval for immigration reform, an issue important to his base.
"Pass a bill. Solve a problem. Don't just say no on something that everybody agrees needs to be done," he said, repeating his contention that a bill would pass if Boehner allowed it to come to a vote in the House.
Conservative Republicans oppose the Senate plan passed last year with bipartisan support because it includes a pathway to legal status for immigrants living illegally in the United States.
They also fear that such a reform measure would bolster already strong Democratic support among Hispanic Americans, the nation's largest minority.
For his part, Boehner said Monday that Republicans don't trust Obama to enforce laws they might pass.
"Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue," he said in a statement after Obama spoke. "The crisis at our southern border reminds us all of the critical importance of fixing our broken immigration system."
He continued, "It is sad and disappointing that -- faced with this challenge -- President Obama won't work with us, but is instead intent on going it alone with executive orders that can't and won't fix these problems."
Boehner noted that previous executive action by Obama to halt deportations of some undocumented children led to the current border crisis by "giving false hope to children and their families that if they enter the country illegally they will be allowed to stay."
In his statement, Obama announced he was ordering a shift in security resources to border regions, and he promised the additional action he can take "without Congress but within his existing authorities to fix as much of our broken immigration system as we can."
The President also sent Congress a letter asking that legislators work with him on providing additional money and leeway to deal with the situation on the southern border.
On Sunday, an administration official told CNN the money -- which could exceed $2 billion -- would go to securing appropriate space for the detention of children but also stemming the tide of immigrants.
The government hopes to increase its ability to investigate and dismantle smuggling organizations as well as quickly return children and adults to their home countries if they do not qualify for asylum, according to that official.
So far, the federal government has struggled to process and accommodate the influx of illegal human traffic but specifically the spike in children.
U.S. authorities estimate that between 60,000 to 80,000 children without parents will cross the border this year in what the White House is calling an "immediate humanitarian crisis."
Earlier in June, the White House announced a plan to spend millions in a government-wide response by sending aide to governments in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to help with crime and violence prevention.
In mid-June, Vice President Joe Biden also spoke with leaders in the three countries as well as Mexico about working together to promote security.
Biden's objective was to emphasize that adults arriving with their children in the United States don't meet the requirements for a policy that defers deportation for children brought to the United States before June 15, 2012.
Obama also spoke with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto about the issue and has warned families who see the dangerous trip as the best option for their children.
Nothing with amnesty will ever pass the House. Anything without amnesty is a conservative wet dream that won't fix anything and will never pass the senate.
It's a stale mate and it really is a case of the conservative powers in the house refusing to give an inch.
BREAKING: White House: Boehner won't set immigration vote this year; Obama to pursue changes on his own.
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 30, 2014
He's lost one battle, now he's racing off to fight another
I pulled that off my twitter feed and... I know it's the AP... but, I seriously doubt it's framed this way.
Seriously, think about this: Is Obama claiming that Congress' choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power, and then that power flows precisely to the President????
Mr. President, if you want Immigration Reform so badly, work with Congress. Give them something they can't refuse... y'know? Negotiate!
Nobody on the Republican side wants to negotiate. They can't bear to give Obama anything close to a win for anything, ever. Congress is a non-starter.
Bull... ca-ca.
Everyone has a price.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Nothing with amnesty will ever pass the House. Anything without amnesty is a conservative wet dream that won't fix anything and will never pass the senate.
It's a stale mate and it really is a case of the conservative powers in the house refusing to give an inch.
Just spitballing here as there are no plans... but, do you think they'd come to the table if Obama offered a 5% reduction to the federal budget?
BREAKING: White House: Boehner won't set immigration vote this year; Obama to pursue changes on his own.
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 30, 2014
He's lost one battle, now he's racing off to fight another
I pulled that off my twitter feed and... I know it's the AP... but, I seriously doubt it's framed this way.
Seriously, think about this: Is Obama claiming that Congress' choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power, and then that power flows precisely to the President????
Mr. President, if you want Immigration Reform so badly, work with Congress. Give them something they can't refuse... y'know? Negotiate!
Nobody on the Republican side wants to negotiate. They can't bear to give Obama anything close to a win for anything, ever. Congress is a non-starter.
Bull... ca-ca.
Everyone has a price.
If I quote you a bargaining price that is too high for you to meet, then it's the same thing as me not wanting to negotiate.
Jihadin wrote: Your looking at Morton Memo for reference DACA. I posted earlier what the memo effected.
You made reference
Which doesn't have anything to do with anybody that has entered the country after July 2012.
Unless he is a secret time traveler and traveled back to 2012 in his secret time machine to write a memo that doesn't affect the future at all.
Which is effecting the present and the future. I keep getting the impression you think Morton memo was a just for one time frame.
Individuals fall under DACA
Individuals who fall under DACA fill out Advance Parole for someone outside the US. Look at the guide lines required for someone to enter. No limitation on the amount of Advance Parole filed
Advance Parole document is reviewed by Immigration lawyer.
Immigration lawyer can decide if justification is good enough to warrant the individual in the Advance Parole can come to the US legally under Advance Parole
Sends to USCIS who ensures everything is correct
Individual arrives. time expires. Cannot be deported.
DACA/Advance parole is being exploited.
DACA recipients are priority for Advance Parole. Takes precedent over Visa
Which affects anybody that entered the US after July 2012 how?
Because that is what your initial claim was: That all of this somehow resulted in all these kids coming across the border now and that is why Boehmer is suing.
You made that claim yourself and I agree with it. DACA is the cause for the sudden influx of unaccompanied minors. It does not apply to them but they think it does. Past two weeks estimated 52K have turned themselves over to CBP where they believe they will not be deported due to DACA. They will not, vast majority of them, be deported Not all countries can get instant internet and see what DACA actually is.
Look at the age for DACA Average age of Immigrants is like 36. Though max age for DACA is 30. They think (under 30) they cannot be deported due to DACA which they are not since majority of them do not fall under priorities of ICE
DACA was implemented Jul 2012. Not really an issue except a certain Act was shot down in Congress in the past
Advance Parole is implemented Mar 2013. The abuse begins. With the Morton memo's in effect in ICE its becomes a Federal Prison Cell Block Rape of a form(s)Act Its a "free ticket" into the US.
DACA has priority for process of Advance Parole over Visa's
Unaccompanied Minors are following right behind on the abuse
Now here's the bigger horror story. 56K made it into the US past two weeks. How many kids have died getting here in those two weeks. How many kids got "employed" by certain organizations.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Well Sebster I assume that you are smart enough to recognize that if something does get passed by a bi-partisan panel that the typical view is that it is a bi-partisan measure until such times as someone says otherwise (typically members from one party who say that they were out voted)
Yeah, if something does get passed by a bi-partisan panel... but you've been claiming this is bi-partisan before that panel has even met, let alone voted on the issue and then had anyone come out and say that the vote was along party lines and not bi-partisan.
Right now the grand total list of people on either side who've supported this measure in any official capacity reads as;
No president can force something through without party support or surprise support from the other side and Obama ain't getting either here.
I doubt even he thinks he'll get anywhere. Rather, his goal would be to try and advance the debate as many steps as he can, since he's no longer interested in the continuance of his political career, he's one of the few politicians in Washington with nothing to do but serve the people and interests he believes in.
Do you think most of the democrats would revolt?
Revolt? A political party is not a hive mind. It's a group of people with vaguely similar political goals who plan as a group how to do things but at the same time are always looking out for number one. He'd get token support from Dems in states where their token support would net them votes next season, that's it. They've no more interest in amnesty than the Republicans right now. Outside of talking about it, the parties are on the same page on the issue.
DACA should not have been done being it was accomplish by the Morton Memo's (memorandums are still in effect)
DACA was an acceptable "over reach"
DACA and Advance Parole is now bypassing establish Immigration Laws
Read the memo's.
What are ICE priorities
Who decides what cases is seen by a Immigration Judge
sebster wrote: Yeah, if something does get passed by a bi-partisan panel... but you've been claiming this is bi-partisan before that panel has even met, let alone voted on the issue and then had anyone come out and say that the vote was along party lines and not bi-partisan.
Which is why I said "if", as in it is contingent upon. I have been pointing out that the panel itself is bi-partisan. Not the measure.
sebster wrote: Right now the grand total list of people on either side who've supported this measure in any official capacity reads as;
1) John Boehner.
You concluded that was a bipartisan group.
The vote hasn't even taken place yet, obviously the person who proposed it supports it. And the group is bi-partisan, unless the composition of it has changed to contain members of only one party
WASHINGTON — As if President Obama doesn't have enough on his plate, the former constitutional law professor might spend the last 2½ years of his term in court, battling Republicans over whether he violated the Constitution.
House Speaker John Boehner's plan to sue the president for going around Congress on issues such as health care, immigration and prisoner exchanges represents an unprecedented congressional reaction to arguably unprecedented presidential initiatives.
Boehner's legal challenge may be a long shot, particularly in lower federal courts that traditionally support the government. But if he carries his case all the way to the Supreme Court, it could outlast Obama's presidency.
As a result, Boehner v. Obama could come to symbolize the president's contentious relations with congressional Republicans in much the same way impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton did in the late 1990s.
USATODAY
Boehner to sue Obama in executive authority dispute
"It's very unlikely that you could resolve anything of this sort until Obama is gone," says Norman Ornstein, a congressional and presidential scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Boehner has yet to outline Republicans' specific case against Obama for violating Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, which says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The House Rules Committee will convene a hearing next week before voting on legislation authorizing a lawsuit, which Republicans then would approve in the full House.
The speaker's choices are many, but his constitutional argument is untested. Most liberal legal experts scoff at his chances; most conservatives lend them credibility.
"It's very important that the Constitution is phrased the way it's phrased," says Simon Lazarus, senior counsel at the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. It requires the president to show judgment and exercise authority through subordinates, he says, rather than execute every part of every law personally.
"It has to be challenged in my judgment," counters Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, "and this may be the best way to challenge it."
Whether Obama has violated the Constitution will come down to the specific actions Boehner challenges. Arguably, the president's overall record on executive actions isn't extraordinary. He has issued 182 executive orders in more than five years — a slower pace than any of his immediate predecessors. Ronald Reagan issued 381 in eight years; George W. Bush, 291.
But some of Obama's recent actions have addressed major policy issues such as the minimum wage, immigration and same-sex marriage. He made his case for unilateral action transparently, telling Congress in this year's State of the Union address that "wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
When presented with Boehner's plan of attack, his response was simple: "So sue me."
"Some of the Republicans in Congress are mad at me for going ahead and doing things," Obama told supporters in Denver Wednesday. "They have plans to sue me for taking executive actions that are within my authority — while they do nothing."
That's what Noel Canning, a Pepsi bottler in Yakima, Wash., did in 2012. The company's legal battle over Obama's "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board ended last month when the Supreme Court declared the appointments unconstitutional because the Senate was not in recess.
Although Noel Canning had the right to sue over the NLRB's ruling on its union contract, it's not clear that House Republicans have standing to sue Obama.
USATODAY
High court rules against Obama on recess appointments
When six members of Congress challenged the constitutionality of the presidential line-item veto in 1997, the Supreme Court denied standing, ruling that the loss of congressional power was an "abstract and widely dispersed" injury.
And last year, the court allowed the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, composed of the top five House leaders, to defend a law denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples after the Justice Department refused to defend it. It did not rule either way on the issue of standing.
Conservatives hope the courts will grant Congress standing to file suit even though Obama's actions, such as those affecting health care and immigration, did not injure anyone.
"Without judicial review of the president's suspension, there is literally no other way — short of impeachment — to defend separation of powers," appellate lawyer David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley, a Florida International University law professor, argued in a recent article.
"I think standing is the whole ball game," says Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "If Boehner gets past standing, that's the toughest challenge. At that point, I think he has the better case over Obama."
That case could include:
•A variety of exemptions and delays granted after the enactment in 2010 of Obama's signature health care law, such as the mandate that employers offer health insurance to their employees.
•The halting of deportations for thousands of undocumented immigrants who came to the USA as young children.
•The prisoner swap that freed five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl without prior congressional notification.
"I think it is clear that the president has overstepped his authority on a number of occasions," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. "The president is effectively nullifying federal law."
On health care, the president could be helped or hurt by a ruling that could come as soon as Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A three-judge panel is set to decide whether the Internal Revenue Service had the right to offer tax subsidies to participants in federal health exchanges, rather than only state exchanges. A ruling against Obama could blow a hole in the health care law — and probably would be appealed to the full circuit court or the Supreme Court.
The case on immigration may be harder to make. In a landmark 2012 ruling involving Arizona's challenge to federal immigration laws, the Supreme Court granted considerable leeway to the federal government to exercise "discretion" when dealing with "immediate human concerns."
"You could make a case if you wanted to that he stretched his executive authority on immigration, and he stretched his executive authority in some areas of the (health care law)," Ornstein says. "All of those fit well within the zone of executive discretion. But they are using executive discretion in an expansive way."
meh... I still don't see how the court will give standing on this.
sebster wrote: Right now the grand total list of people on either side who've supported this measure in any official capacity reads as;
1) John Boehner.
You concluded that was a bipartisan group.
The vote hasn't even taken place yet, obviously the person who proposed it supports it. And the group is bi-partisan, unless the composition of it has changed to contain members of only one party
That doesn't even make sense. Just because a group is bipartisan, it doesn't mean that every proposal put out by the group is bipartisan. If Reid was to put out some kind of super left-leaning-turning-America-into-a-communist-state-thing (too lazy to think of a good example), it would be a bipartisan proposal by your standards. That's the issue sebster has, I think.
It's hard to say. I remain of the opinion that no such lawsuit should happen, and any court it might be filed in should dismiss it out of hand. It's really not the place of the judicial branch to intervene in how faithfully the executive upholds the law - the legislative already posses ample remedies for an errant executive.
It feels like election year nonsense, but amped up to levels rarely seen in my lifetime.
Ouze wrote: It's hard to say. I remain of the opinion that no such lawsuit should happen, and any court it might be filed in should dismiss it out of hand. It's really not the place of the judicial branch to intervene in how faithfully the executive upholds the law - the legislative already posses ample remedies for an errant executive.
It feels like election year nonsense, but amped up to levels rarely seen in my lifetime.
Agreed. ON the positive this is a nice TShirt opportunity "Sue the Prez 2014 Tour"
Ouze wrote: It's hard to say. I remain of the opinion that no such lawsuit should happen, and any court it might be filed in should dismiss it out of hand. It's really not the place of the judicial branch to intervene in how faithfully the executive upholds the law - the legislative already posses ample remedies for an errant executive.
It feels like election year nonsense, but amped up to levels rarely seen in my lifetime.
I simply don't see how Boehner can claim he has standing.
It's obvious that the courts really loathe to "decide" on policy stuff... they may get involved if there's something clearly a constitutional crisis (ie, whether the Executive can determine if Congress is in session).
I can see it happens like this:
Congress: Can a member sue a President over policy differences?
Courts: No
Congress: How about a group of members?
Courts: Seriously?
I still say, the fault remains with Congress with their history of passing open-ended laws/policies that forces the Executive Branch to interpret that themselves via Executive regulations.
Perfect example of this is the HHS' Contraceptive Mandate.
I still say, the fault remains with Congress with their history of passing open-ended laws/policies that forces the Executive Branch to interpret that themselves via Executive regulations.
That's unavoidable. You can't expect Congress to tightly restrict all Executive action, even trying to do that would ensure that Congress passed even fewer pieces of significant legislation. Congress has to let the Executive perform its function. Of course there exceptions to this rule, but for the most part it holds.
On the plus side, all this discussion of Boehner reminded me of this story.
I still say, the fault remains with Congress with their history of passing open-ended laws/policies that forces the Executive Branch to interpret that themselves via Executive regulations.
That's unavoidable. You can't expect Congress to tightly restrict all Executive action, even trying to do that would ensure that Congress passed even fewer pieces of significant legislation. Congress has to let the Executive perform its function. Of course there exceptions to this rule, but for the most part it holds.
With the way Congress (and more specifically the House) is running things, we should just stop with this "we are a Republic" crap and become the parliamentary democracy that the Republicans in DC want us to be.
- We already vote by party over person.
- The parties have designated people in their leadership to ensure party discipline and that people vote along party lines and not for the actual people/districts that elected them.
- The legislature wants to basically be the executive and run everything instead of letting the executive enact and enforce the law the way they best see fit (one of the traits of this whole "checks and balances" thing.
We should just become the EU and let states become their own countries and become the American Union.
Boehner’s lame stunt fizzles: The plan to sue Obama has gone, predictably, nowhere SIMON MALOY
Remember when John Boehner was going to sue President Obama? It seems like an age ago, what with all the immigration crises and Ebola outbreaks and wars in the Middle East that happened since the House Republicans got it in their heads to file suit against the president over his changes to the Affordable Care Act’s implementation. The lawsuit was announced with great fanfare, and conservative political observers, like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, were impressed with Boehner’s seriousness. Hearings were held, votes were cast, and the suit was on its way through the legal system.
Or so we thought. Since voting to authorize the lawsuit in early July, Boehner and the House GOP have sat on their hands. “It takes about 10 minutes to walk from the Capitol to the federal courthouse just down the hill,” Politico’s Josh Gerstein reported last Friday, “but House Republicans haven’t managed to make that trip in the four months since they announced they’d be suing the president.”
Boehner’s slow-foot approach to the lawsuit is a bit puzzling, given that he justified the lawsuit in part by arguing that the Constitution was under imminent threat from Obama’s “lawlessness” and action had to be taken immediately. “The legislative branch has an obligation to defend the rights and responsibilities of the American people,” Boehner wrote in an Op-Ed for CNN, “and America’s constitutional balance of powers — before it is too late.” Now Boehner’s people are telling Politico that they’ll get around to it when they get around to it: “A spokesman for Boehner said the date for filing the litigation remains up in the air. ‘No decisions on timing at this point,’ spokesman Kevin Smith said Friday.”
So what’s going on here? Well, there seem to be three answers for why Boehner’s lawsuit is trapped in limbo. The first is that they never actually intended to follow through with the suit and that this was all a pre-election stunt intended to motivate the GOP base and mollify impeachment-crazy conservatives. That’s difficult to demonstrate conclusively, but it’s a satisfactory explanation for the utter lack of progress on the suit four months after its heavily hyped debut.
The second is that Republicans were actually going to file the suit, but started having second thoughts as the legal rationale fell apart and political embarrassments piled up. Key Republicans broke with Boehner by arguing that asking the courts to intervene in a separation-of-powers conflict was not the best solution, and that Congress’ best answer to executive overreach was to actually pass legislation. When the House Rules Committee held its hearing on the merits of the suit, it was discovered that one of the experts Republicans called to testify in favor of suing had previously argued unequivocally that Congress lacks standing to sue the White House .
As for the legal rationale for Boehner’s proposed action, the suit was considered a wild longshot even before the House voted to authorize it, and since then it’s only faced more and more setbacks. The most recent was turned up by Constitutional Accountability Center attorneys Simon Lazarus and Elisabeth Stein, who found a Congressional Research Service report from September that, in their view, leaves zero doubt that Boehner’s suit has no legal merit:
Although shrouded in twelve pages of fine print and protectively bureaucratic phraseology, the report’s bottom line is clear: not merely are the legal underpinnings of the Republicans’ planned lawsuit weak; the report turns up no legal basis – no “there” there – at all.
Per Lazarus and Stein, the report “bears the earmarks of an inquiry, requested by the Speaker or his allies, to give some color of legitimacy to their charges of rampant presidential illegality. Instead, the result validates the lawyers’ maxim not to ask a question when unsure of the likely answer.”
The third explanation for the delay is that Republicans want to wait until after the midterms so that they’re not seen as merely trying to influence the elections. That’s the theory put forth by one conservative legal analyst quoted by Politico: “After the election, it ought to garner more serious commentary, evaluation and judicial review.” This theory doesn’t make a ton of sense. The politicization of the lawsuit already happened. What difference would the simple bureaucratic act of initiating the lawsuit make when they already spent several weeks during the summer politicizing the hell out of the Rules Committee hearing on the suit and the party-line vote to authorize it? It’s a little late for the GOP to argue that they don’t want this to look political.
But whatever the reason, the fact remains that Boehner’s suit, once heralded as a necessary step to curb the abuse of President Obama’s executive authority, is now moribund.
As many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need to be circumspect about my comments in the future on related stories.
On July 30, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted, by a vote of 225-201, H. Res. 676, which provided that
the Speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official’s duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision.
I have previously testified that I believe that judicial review is needed to rebalance the powers of the branches in our system after years of erosion of legislative authority. Clearly, some take the view of a fiat accompli in this fundamental change in our constitutional system. This resignation over the dominance of the Executive Branch is the subject of much of my recent academic writings, including two forthcoming works. For that reason, to quote the movie Jerry Maguire, the House “had me at hello” in seeking a ruling to reinforce the line of authority between the branches. [whembly: ]
As many on this blog know, I support national health care and voted for President Obama in his first presidential campaign. However, as I have often stressed before Congress, in the Madisonian system it is as important how you do something as what you do. And, the Executive is barred from usurping the Legislative Branch’s Article I powers, no matter how politically attractive or expedient it is to do so. Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues. In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law. Without judicial review of unconstitutional actions by the Executive, the trend toward a dominant presidential model of government will continue in this country in direct conflict with the original design and guarantees of our Constitution. Our constitutional system as a whole (as well as our political system) would benefit greatly by courts reinforcing the lines of separation between the respective branches.
After I testified earlier on this lawsuit, I was asked by some House Members and reporters if I would represent the House and I stated that I could not. That position had nothing to do with the merits of such a lawsuit. At that time, in addition to my other litigation obligations, I had a national security case going to trial and another trial case in Utah. Recently, we prevailed in both of those cases. Subsequently, the House General Counsel’s Office contacted me about potentially representing House. With the two recent successes, I was able to take on the representation.
It is a great honor to represent the House of Representatives. We are prepared to litigate this matter as far as necessary. The question presented by this lawsuit is whether we will live in a system of shared and equal powers, as required by our Constitution, or whether we will continue to see the rise of a dominant Executive with sweeping unilateral powers. That is a question worthy of review and resolution in our federal courts.
Thank god, I was worried they were actually going to focus on governing for a while. As I've said numerous times, it's pathetic how much effort people on the taxpayer's dollar put into stuff like this and how little they put into what they're paid to do. But they keep getting voted in, with at least some awareness of what they are going to do with their time and money, so maybe the people supporting them should stop complaining about how the rest of their tax dollars go to use (social services and what not) if they clearly don't give a gak how this portion is used.
motyak wrote: Thank god, I was worried they were actually going to focus on governing for a while. As I've said numerous times, it's pathetic how much effort people on the taxpayer's dollar put into stuff like this and how little they put into what they're paid to do. But they keep getting voted in, with at least some awareness of what they are going to do with their time and money, so maybe the people supporting them should stop complaining about how the rest of their tax dollars go to use (social services and what not) if they clearly don't give a gak how this portion is used.
You mean like the POTUS taking steps to ensure that he does nothing to build bridges with Congress after his party lost the majority? By doing things like threatening to make Executive Orders on immigration? Of promising not to implement the Keystone XL pipeline? Or an emissions agreement with China?
The voters rejected his party, and him in particular. So what has he done? Ignored the results and claimed a mandate from those who didn't vote.
But lets ignore that and the continued erosion of checks and balances as the Executive Branch tries to obtain more power and just paint this as silliness. After all, it would be so much cheaper if the opponents of the POTUS just went along with his agenda, and ignored what their constituents want.
motyak wrote: Thank god, I was worried they were actually going to focus on governing for a while. As I've said numerous times, it's pathetic how much effort people on the taxpayer's dollar put into stuff like this and how little they put into what they're paid to do. But they keep getting voted in, with at least some awareness of what they are going to do with their time and money, so maybe the people supporting them should stop complaining about how the rest of their tax dollars go to use (social services and what not) if they clearly don't give a gak how this portion is used.
You mean like the POTUS taking steps to ensure that he does nothing to build bridges with Congress after his party lost the majority? By doing things like threatening to make Executive Orders on immigration? Of promising not to implement the Keystone XL pipeline? Or an emissions agreement with China?
The voters rejected his party, and him in particular. So what has he done? Ignored the results and claimed a mandate from those who didn't vote.
But lets ignore that and the continued erosion of checks and balances as the Executive Branch tries to obtain more power and just paint this as silliness. After all, it would be so much cheaper if the opponents of the POTUS just went along with his agenda, and ignored what their constituents want.
Or they coud still govern, passing laws that are comprimises. Not sue him. If he is being a gakker, so be it, it gives them no right to.
motyak wrote: Thank god, I was worried they were actually going to focus on governing for a while. As I've said numerous times, it's pathetic how much effort people on the taxpayer's dollar put into stuff like this and how little they put into what they're paid to do. But they keep getting voted in, with at least some awareness of what they are going to do with their time and money, so maybe the people supporting them should stop complaining about how the rest of their tax dollars go to use (social services and what not) if they clearly don't give a gak how this portion is used.
You mean like the POTUS taking steps to ensure that he does nothing to build bridges with Congress after his party lost the majority? By doing things like threatening to make Executive Orders on immigration? Of promising not to implement the Keystone XL pipeline? Or an emissions agreement with China?
The voters rejected his party, and him in particular. So what has he done? Ignored the results and claimed a mandate from those who didn't vote.
But lets ignore that and the continued erosion of checks and balances as the Executive Branch tries to obtain more power and just paint this as silliness. After all, it would be so much cheaper if the opponents of the POTUS just went along with his agenda, and ignored what their constituents want.
1. Re: Underlined - cite please. Are you referring to Obama's EA on immigration?
2. Re: "ignoring what their constituents want", they've been doing that for, oh, pretty much ever. How many red states had protests with "keep your government out of my medicare" or anti-socialized medicine sentiments? How many of those people continue to enjoy their medicare and medicaid?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: But lets ignore that and the continued erosion of checks and balances as the Executive Branch tries to obtain more power and just paint this as silliness.
Look, here's the thing. I never painted "this" as silliness, if we define "this" as the erosion of checks and balances and and overreaching Executive. In fact, I agree that the Executive is overreaching in many instances, and has been doing so for decades.
My beef is that this lawsuit is "silliness". It's legislative attention whoring, and a civil lawsuit against a sitting president for acts he committed in the faithful execution of his office is not one of the checks and balances that is used to settle that issue. The framers indeed put ample protection from an out-of-control Executive in the constitution, and this isn't one of them. They can't sack up to actually do what, if they actually believe this is true, is their duty.
They need to either: impeach the president, and if the executive really is overreaching, they should be able to reach a consensus on this, or
Pass legislation that allows them to override the President's veto, and again if the president is overreaching they should be able to reach a consensus on this, or
suck it up, stop delegating their authority to the Judicial branch, FFS, and appeal to the American people so that they can get a member of their party elected President.
Eh... the problem is that the executive overreach is fast becoming "The Obama Rule".
And that's... spooky man.
Just think... just as Obama instructed the Treasury Department not to enforce the Obamacare reporting requirement for employers, the next Republican president could instruct Treasury not to enforce, say, income taxes outside certain reformed brackets.
The problem is that, it's the hard and sometimes unpopular to use the legitimate constitutional processes to correct the use of illegitimate ones. (as it should be imo).
Also, the media doesn't help... the gubmint shutdown of '13 was supposed to be catastrophic. Right?
Spoiler: the next administration is going to do exactly the same stuff regardless of party. Bush said it was OK to torture people without oversight, Obama said he could assassinate Americans without oversight, I mean, it's gonna get even more awesome, because Congress is never going to sack up and do their jobs. Legislating is hard, whining on the news and threatening to file meaningless, toothless lawsuits is easier I guess.
Spoiler: the next administration is going to do exactly the same stuff regardless of party. Bush said it was OK to torture people without oversight, Obama said he could assassinate Americans without oversight, I mean, it's gonna get even more awesome, because Congress is never going to sack up and do their jobs. Legislating is hard, whining on the news and threatening to file meaningless, toothless lawsuits is easier I guess.
Yup. I remember and still wasn't a fan of it.
But, it goes back several Presidency... not just Obama & Bush.
So, what do you do?
Use the power of the purse? Gee... remember how "bad" it was during that shutdown fight in '13?
What about not approving any political appointees at the Senate? Um... how do you combat against the "Obstructionist™" charge?
To a certain extent, both parties has been horrible at conveying what they're trying to do.
*shrug*
And the other thing is that the Media is always like:
<When Republicans does something bad>: Look how EXTREME these Republicans are! <When Democrats does something bad>: Look how the extremist Republicans are complaining about every little thing here...
Send him a new bill twice a day. Then start sending continuing resolutions to fund the rest fo the government every day.
Should we do that? nah not for this. but immigration reform is now dead and they can put forth a bill authorizing and paying for border security in a big way. If he refuses to sign that he gets obliterated politically.
Frankly they should do that anyway. Pass that now, THEN pass some sort of amnesty, global ID, and mandatory felony for hiring illegal immigrants not covered by the amnesty. Even he doesn't sign it hang him with the bill.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Or they coud still govern, passing laws that are comprimises. Not sue him. If he is being a gakker, so be it, it gives them no right to.
So out of the three examples we have two that are being done by Executive Order, and one being threatened to be done by EO either within the week or by the end of the year. So where is the compromise possible there?
So what are compromise positions on;
- immigration
- emissions
- Keystone XL
That both parties could agree on?
streamdragon wrote: 1. Re: Underlined - cite please. Are you referring to Obama's EA on immigration?
streamdragon wrote: 2. Re: "ignoring what their constituents want", they've been doing that for, oh, pretty much ever. How many red states had protests with "keep your government out of my medicare" or anti-socialized medicine sentiments? How many of those people continue to enjoy their medicare and medicaid?
I don't know, why don't you tell us?
Ouze wrote: Look, here's the thing. I never painted "this" as silliness,
Good thing I didn't quote you then, isn't it
Ouze wrote: In fact, I agree that the Executive is overreaching in many instances, and has been doing so for decades.
Ok, we have common ground here.
Ouze wrote: My beef is that this lawsuit is "silliness". It's legislative attention whoring, and a civil lawsuit against a sitting president for acts he committed in the faithful execution of his office is not one of the checks and balances that is used to settle that issue. The framers indeed put ample protection from an out-of-control Executive in the constitution, and this isn't one of them. They can't sack up to actually do what, if they actually believe this is true, is their duty.
They need to either: impeach the president, and if the executive really is overreaching, they should be able to reach a consensus on this, or
Pass legislation that allows them to override the President's veto, and again if the president is overreaching they should be able to reach a consensus on this, or
suck it up, stop delegating their authority to the Judicial branch, FFS, and appeal to the American people so that they can get a member of their party elected President.
And how likely is the underlined given the current partisan nature of American politics? With no serious threat before the elections the Democrats were trying to fire up their base with unsubstantiated claims that Obama was going to be impeached if they lost control.
That's like saying, "hey, that other guy did it before me!".
IMO, and I may be a bit way off here... it definitely has a feeling now that Presidents may not use that many EOs, but what they use them FOR is a major concern.
The "up to date" ish stats for Executive Order use, by President. Thing is, the majority of the time, an EO is used to clarify, or place emphasis on existing laws, or to govern the actions of an organization within the Executive Branch (ie, the executive orders that forbids US Military Intelligence apparatus to actively spy on US Citizens, or US Citizens' groups, and provides the outlined steps to be taken, should it be discovered through the course of normal Intel duties an American citizen spying against American interests, etc.)
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. Its not the number thats important. Its what they're being used for, and Obama is rapidly overstepping the bounds of whats been done.
Agreed. I asked about this exact subject in my political science class today, and the answer that I got was basically an EO is used "in conjunction" with a law, it doesn't circumvent, establish or otherwise override laws.
Unless Obama's upcoming Immigration EO basically is, "Enforce the hell out of the laws already on the books" I think he runs the risk of falling into that "circumventing, establishing, and overriding" territory.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. Its not the number thats important. Its what they're being used for, and Obama is rapidly overstepping the bounds of whats been done.
Agreed. I asked about this exact subject in my political science class today, and the answer that I got was basically an EO is used "in conjunction" with a law, it doesn't circumvent, establish or otherwise override laws.
Unless Obama's upcoming Immigration EO basically is, "Enforce the hell out of the laws already on the books" I think he runs the risk of falling into that "circumventing, establishing, and overriding" territory.
House Republicans on Friday filed a long-awaited lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of overstepping his executive authority when implementing his signature health care law.
And though the suit is centered on the Affordable Care Act, the GOP moved on the legal action the morning after the president announced he will unilaterally grant temporary relief to millions of undocumented immigrants.
"Time after time, the president has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress. That's not the way our system of government was designed to work,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action."
The suit, filed against the heads of Health and Human Services and Treasury Department, is centered on the White House decision to delay the employer mandate of the health care law and accuses the administration of unlawfully giving $175 billion to insurance companies.
House Republicans approved a bill authorizing the legal action in a 225-201 vote in July. No Democrats supported the measure.
The suit has been dismissed by Democrats as a politically motivated waste of taxpayer money. The president has said his actions have only been necessary because Republicans in Congress have refused to work with him.
"While the American people want Congress to get serious about creating good-paying jobs and strengthening the middle class, House Republicans are paying $500-an-hour in taxpayer money to sue the President of the United States," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
"The fact is, this lawsuit is a bald-faced attempt to achieve what Republicans have been unable to achieve through the political process. The legislative branch cannot sue simply because they disagree with the way a law passed by a different Congress has been implemented.
Republicans say the suit is necessary to protect the Constitution.
Earlier this week George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley agreed to represent the GOP in the suit after the other attorneys declined to, allegedly due to political pressure.
A wise man said some things once, which were promptly ignored:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Didn't think that would happen.
