The Obama Administration again waited for a Friday afternoon to announce a major new policy change — repeating its practice of timing important announcements to reduce media and public attention. The latest change is obviously controversial. The Administration will no longer deport illegal aliens under 30 who came to this country as children — effectively negating part of the federal law. It raises some troubling questions, again, about President Obama assertion of executive power. While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination. It is one more brick in the wall of the Imperial Presidency constructed under Barack Obama — a wall that may prove difficult to dismantle for citizens in the future.
Presidents are given extreme deference in decisions on the enforcement of federal laws. It would be difficult for anyone to challenge this policy for that reason. However, that does not mean that this is a good practice — regardless of the merits of specific policy. It is also hard to ignore the obvious political play for Hispanic votes in key swing states. Obama waited for years to take this action and did so with polls showing that Hispanics will likely select the next president. Even some of the more liberal columnists and reporters are acknowledging that this change appears driven by politics.
Obama officials do not deny that they are circumventing Congress. In a recent interview, senior Obama adviser David Plouff told CNN “if congress would act, we would be happy to sign the DREAM Act tomorrow.” Since it has not done so, the White House is going to accomplish the same objection unilaterally.
This is different from past presidents who have not made deportation a priority in their policies. Despite the criticism of Obama, he is certainly no less aggressive on deportation than his predecessors. Indeed, he may be more aggressive in terms of numbers. Presidents like George W. Bush clearly did not push for deportation based solely on illegal status. The Administration, however, was forced to admit this long-suspected policy in court in fighting the Arizona law — stating that it did conflict with federal policy because the Administration did not want mass deportations.
This is different. Here the Administration is implementing a categorical policy not to enforce federal law, which dictates deportation for illegal immigrations regardless of their age. Congress has refused to pass such laws and this is an obvious effort to circumvent Congress — something of a signature for this Administration. Liberals were outraged by Bush’s use of signing statements as a circumvention of Congress. Yet, when Obama broke his promise and started using signing statements, liberals were again silent. Now, he has gone further and (rather than advancing a restrictive interpretation) he has announced that he will simply not enforce the law.
The change could also create a new conflict with states passing tough immigration laws. We are awaiting the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Arizona case where the Administration may lose some ground. The announcement on Friday could be an effort to preempt the decision. If the Administration had already decided to stop deportations, it would look bad to come after the decision and appear to be circumventing both the judicial and legislative branches.
This is part of a pattern for the Administration. For example, the Administration has announced that it will ignore two federal statutes that bar betting across state lines. That effectively legalized Internet gambling. While his Administration claims that it has no choice but to enforce other laws like marijuana enforcement and for years, both DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell laws, it has not hesitated to declare other laws as unenforceable as a matter of policy. Ultimately, it took the same approach to DOMA — after years of defending it. DOMA is striking in that the Administration still refuses to accept that sexual orientation should be treated like race or gender as a category of discrimination. If it did, the refusal to defend DOMA would have been more clearly based on a view that it is unconstitutional. Instead, the Administration made general claims of states rights (that do not apply to areas like medical marijuana it seems) and even more vague references to privacy and equal protection.
What is left is a conflicted approach to enforcement based on the president’s changing views — in the latest case a change that seems motivated in large part by political advantage.
Liberals and civil libertarians were united on such questions in denouncing the circumvention of Congress by Bush. However, once again, there appears to be a blindness to the dangers of this practice when it comes to Obama. What will happen if a President Romney simply declares that he is not going to enforce environmental law or conflict laws or other parts of the federal code? Is the difference going to be simply that he is not Obama? Liberals are losing not just their credibility but principles in these controversies. Our system is based on a careful balancing of power that forces disparate factional groups to reach agreements in the legislative process. That is what brings the stability to our system.
This latest controversy is not about young illegal immigrants. There are strong policy arguments in favor of this change. However, those arguments need to be made in Congress. This should also not be an “after-the-fact” debate following a change late on a Friday where the president simply grants the equivalent of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of people. Polls show a sharply divided population with a majority favoring tougher immigration laws. We have a political system designed to address such divisive issues. It does not always work the way presidents demand. Indeed, the Democrats previously used filibusters and other techniques to block the Bush Administration and how the Republicans are doing the same thing. However, that is the point. Presidents should not be able to simply make federal laws discretionary to their whim or will. This may be a worthy end but it is the wrong means in a system based on shared powers of government.
Source: Politico
Logan5
1, June 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm
I find the ease with which many here accept near-dictatorial rule deeply disturbing.
——————————————-
Obama is the anti-dictater,or perhaps, on the grand scale of dictaters, he’s just a tad shy of a tater-tot.. 😉 SCOTUS though, with their deciding of elections and pandering to uber-people ….they are a collective BUSHELL! of dictaters….
Obama, well, He is just walking around a cess-pool of Stag-Nation…..
Mike S.,
I notice that you mention being “near to the top of the roundup list.” I find it interesting that the very same fears and rhetoric are often expressed on the right as well. In fact, with notable exceptions in methodology that I noted earlier, both the right and left actually frequently use similar language and fear the “other side” for virtually identical reasons.
Needless to say, a republic cannot function this way. While we certainly have profound differences on certain specific issues, I think that most Americans, whether right or left, share a basic desire to see government play by a mutually agreed upon set of rules. We cannot allow those rules, as enshrined in our Constitution, to be adhered to only when the party in power desires them to be. And we certainly must resist the temptation to look the other way when “our guy” is bending or ignoring the Constitution.
The debate over the boundaries of Executive power in the federal government goes all the way back to Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists vs. the Anti-Federalists. What is clear is that despite this debate, the majority of the Founders were dead-set against creating yet another king in the form of the President. We have unfortunately drifted far beyond the constraints they so wisely imposed.
We are all familiar, I am sure, with John Adams’ quote, that we have a “…government of laws, and not of men.” That concept is absolutely essential to the American form of government. If we now think that we can simply turn our back on this concept, and instead allow an Obama or Bush or whoever to do whatever they please just so long as we personally like the outcome, then we will have payed too high a price for our momentary political gain. Wake up people! Put politics aside and stand on principle.
“Mike S, Bush was too liberal on immigration for these folks.”
SwM,
Reagan was too liberal for this crop of Republicans, though they’ve bestowed sainthood upon him.
“I don’t know who Jill is nor have I read any of her posts.”
Logan5,
I accept that as true, but then I must draw the obvious conclusion that you commented on this thread, with no idea of the ongoing discussion, since Jill is featured prominently. That doesn’t speak very well for your ability to absorb any information contrary to your rote beliefs.
Logan5,
My post was not aimed at you, because rather frankly you are a nonentity given your silly post. It was actually done to point out that people from purportedly different parts of the political spectrum think similarly and to let the reader draw their own conclusions as to what that signifies.
“Not saying that it’s easy, but simply throwing in the towel before any effort is formed is silly. When people base their decisions on likelihood of political success, even when their candidate does not win, it ‘s not WASTED.”
CLH,
Why do you think I spend the amount of time writing that I do here? How do you know what organizations I support? If the shit comes down how near to the top of the roundup list will I be? I’ve been putting myself on the line since I was a teenager, so please try to understand what I’m saying, rather than simply viewing it through your pre-judgments? I’m voting for Obama for very specific reasons, which I’ve stated here time and again. None of those reasons have to do with my enchantment with him. He has been a disappointment to me and I stated that over and over here, in phone calls to the White House and using other means.
I know of two people here who refuse to vote for Obama, Gene H. and Tony C., yet I’ve never argued the point with either of them, although I disagreed with Tony’s thinking on Ron Paul. The reason is that both of them make their cases very well and I believe in their integrity. Professor Turley certainly is not a fan of Obama, I understand why and I don’t have any problem with it, in fact given his career I can’t see him feeling any other way publicly.
However, quite simply I can see reasons to vote for Obama ad the main one for me is to keep the Republicans from gaining full control of all branches of government. I personally believe that would be a disaster. This doesn’t mean that I overlook those breeches of the Constitution done by this Administration, quite the contrary. My nature is both pragmatic and iconoclastic. When I make political choices it is for reasons that are clear to me and I think I express myself clearly enough for people to understand that I am a person of integrity, but I see the world through a particular perspective.
Mike S, Bush was too liberal on immigration for these folks. He actually did support the Dream Act unlike Romney, and he was fairly well regarded by latinos in Texas and elsewhere.
Obama and George W are what we get nowadays. We have a justice system so corrupted and a legislature so irresponsible that the Chief Executive just expands like a helium balloon in a vacuum.
The problem is that it is a damn noisy vacuum and nature abhors it.
Mike,
Please don’t waste time with silly conspiracy theories. I don’t know who Jill is nor have I read any of her posts.
Mike,
Pretty presumptuous of you to conclude on the basis of precisely zero knowledge that I was “perfectly happy” with George W. Bush. I most certainly was not.
I thought, as did many on the right, that the Patriot Act was a euphemistically-named, dangerous piece of legislation. I also disliked Bush because, like Obama, he unilaterally decided to ignore immigration law. There are many other reasons I was not a fan of his.
Executive overreach is one thing, and both Bush and Obama are guilty of it. But (in my opinion) Obama is going beyond mere overreach and is attempting to become a defacto dictator. I mean, come on…. the President of the United States hiring and firing the CEO of a private corporation, General Motors? Please cite the constitutional authority for that one! Or how about refusing to permit certain “too big to fail” financial institutions to pay back their TARP loans, apparently to keep them under his control? The examples are endless. He and his appointees are now openly reveling in their desire and ability to ignore the will of Congress (which by extension, represents the will of the People). And you liberals who were so incensed by Bush just cheer him on. Pathetic.
Puzzling,
So sorry to disappoint you yet again since I know your standards are so high. Oh well, I guess I’ ll have to live with your disapproval in sadness because your opinion means so much to me.
Blouise,
In the words of a great thinker, who sometimes sports a greenish hue, one lives to be of service.
“I find the ease with which many here accept near-dictatorial rule deeply disturbing. It appears that the only principle guiding these people is the “whose ox is being gored” principle. Simply put, if “their guy” is in office or if policy outcomes they desire are the result, they appear to have no qualms whatsoever about a President ruling by fiat.”
CURIOUS?
One of the most disturbing things going on in this nation is the left’s desire for a dictator. Congress isn’t functional so we need a dictator? WOW!
Leftists have a long, ignoble history of ushering in brutal dictators. Leftists complain loudly about this tendency on the right, as well they should. The right has brought in an amazing number of truly horrific “dear leaders”. But currently, it is the left who wants a savior, a father figure and a dictator to make things “right”.
CURIOUSER?
Hatred of Obama makes strange bedfellows.
Jill meet Logan5, Logan5 meet Jill. It seems you two have a lot in common.
“I find the ease with which many here accept near-dictatorial rule deeply disturbing. It appears that the only principle guiding these people is the “whose ox is being gored” principle. Simply put, if “their guy” is in office or if policy outcomes they desire are the result, they appear to have no qualms whatsoever about a President ruling by fiat.”
so Logan5,
Judging by the above and this below:
“What is it with the left and hypocrisy? Sure, we all are only human and are susceptible to it at times, but the left seems to make an art form of it.”
You were perfectly happy with a “Dictator” like George Bush, but when a centrist Republican like Obama takes office, under a Democratic banner, he is then dubbed a dictator. Where’s the hypocrisy, really?
Logan,
We have already lived through 8 years of hypocrisy during the Bush years so we know it when we see it. This alleged pining for a dictator seems to be the latest talking point of the right. Go ahead and keep spewing that nonsense, but it is nonsense.
I find the ease with which many here accept near-dictatorial rule deeply disturbing. It appears that the only principle guiding these people is the “whose ox is being gored” principle. Simply put, if “their guy” is in office or if policy outcomes they desire are the result, they appear to have no qualms whatsoever about a President ruling by fiat.
Fortunately, we have a word to describe this behavior: “Hypocrisy.” These very same people would throw unprecedented tantrums if someone of the opposite political persuasion were to act similarly. And yes, I’ve seen the posts that feebly attempt to justify this hypocrisy by claiming that what “the other guy” did was really bad, but what “our guy” is doing is noble and therefore OK. Nonsense! That’s nothing more than rationalizing, and only further illustrates the complete lack of critical thinking occurring in said craniums.
What is it with the left and hypocrisy? Sure, we all are only human and are susceptible to it at times, but the left seems to make an artform of it. Example: The left professes to have the market cornered on “tolerance” and respect for “freedom of speech”, but just watch what happens when the rare conservative speaker is invited to speak on a college campus. Or how about the “tolerance” they display when liberal blogs are routinely filled with death wishes for any prominent conservative who happens to be ailing? Classy….
As for the aforementioned “occupy movement”, a simple tally of the murders, rapes, theft, and general filthiness that have surrounded their camps should serve as ample testimony to their “character.”
This is serious stuff. We have a certain segment of the country that literally pines for a dictator. The fact that some of the more reasonable in their midst see the danger that this presents is cause for some optimism, but not if the rest of their fellow travelers continue to shoot the messenger.
Yippee. Republicans get more cheap labor, businesses of all kinds, in every kind of business, get a couple of million new customers each year, O gets some more votes, so-called liberals get a rush, Mexico gets a little relief from fear of social upheaval, and Joe and Mary six-pack will pick up the bulk of the tab (they don’t care about any negative impact on the school system — they’ll continue to blame their kids’ poor education on the bloated
Board of Education) and execs at Corrections Corporation of America will get that big raise they’ve been after.
Such a deal.
Mike S,
This is a damn good thing and the right thing to do and …
Sometimes you just write stuff that makes me smile
Woosty’s still a Cat
has anyone else noticed that muppet master is a bot?
——————————————————————————–
Swarthmore mom
Woosty, yep.
——————————————————————————-
Woosty & SwM,
We’re a trio …
@SwM
That’s great. How many of those have occurred in the five months between the SOTU and now?
“and I don’t remember a decent debate since the League of Women voters were usurped…..but I am finding new places to find less corrupted news….”
I’m trying too.