The Executive Over-Reach Debate Turns To Immigration

Screen Shot 2014-07-27 at 9.39.29 PM

I have received a fair number of emails over the debate last week featuring my views on executive power on the Senate floor. The debate concerned the growing fight over immigration and I have been asked by journalists if I believe that the President is also violating the Separation of Powers with the suggestion of unilateral measures in the area. I am indeed troubled by the suggestion of a new round of unilateral actions by the President. However, the details are still unclear.

The display used in the Senate debate featured a quote from my recent testimony before the House Rules Committee on July 16, 2014:

“The President’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger the framers sought to avoid . . .
What we’re witnessing today is one of the greatest crises that members of this body will face . . . it has reached a constitutional tipping point that threatens a fundamental change in how our country is governed.”

(I am inclined now to give all my future congressional testimony on huge blue boards like this one for emphasis).

I testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. I ran another column listing such incidents of executive over-reach. My prior testimony has discussed unilateral actions in the immigration field that do raise separation issues.

I have also noted that some of these actions probably do fall within the strike zone for the president in using executive power. In areas like environmental law, the president has been given broader authority under statutes like the Clean Air Act. The problem is that the President has not offered details on the new round of unilateral actions. Some reports indicate that millions might be given new status. Of course, even concluding that the President can act does not mean that he should act without congressional action. Major changes in these areas should not be the result of unilateral action in my view. The Madisonian system is designed to allow different constituencies to come to bear in the bicameral system to take factional disputes and convert them into majoritarian compromises. The result has greater legitimacy as the result of the legislative product and often constitutes a better product after being put through the difficult drafting and amendment process. During times of division, less may get done. Both sides must either compromise or seek to change the balance of power in the next election. If the country and Congress is too divided to reach a compromise, unilateral action will only deepen the questions of legitimacy and over-reach.

We will have to wait to see the specific unilateral actions to judge their constitutionality. However, for those of us who are uncomfortable with the rise of the über presidency in the United States, the suggestion of a president dictating a massive change in the status of millions of people raises many of these same concerns.

39 thoughts on “The Executive Over-Reach Debate Turns To Immigration”

  1. “So, if Congress stages a defacto sit-down strike and refuses to do anything, the President must just go along with it, regardless of resulting damage to the country?”

    Jay S,
    He can hold his breath, not eat his vegetables, not let them play with his toys, wet his pants and bawl his eyeballs out. As frustrating as Congress might be to him, he is obligated to work with them. He can use his bully pulpit and try to convince the American people to motivate Congress but, if he chooses to do that early (instead of working with Congress) and often, then he runs the risk of appearing to be a whining, spoiled child.

    Damage to the country? Are you talking about the damage being done by NOT enforcing the laws already on the books or damage being done because no law exists?

  2. So, if Congress stages a defacto sit-down strike and refuses to do anything, the President must just go along with it, regardless of resulting damage to the country?

  3. thght this was interesting re executive powers of preFor example, Congress can grant the President (or his Attorney General) the authority to deport certain illegal aliens, but it cannot attempt to retain a veto over the final decision as it tried to do in the Immigration and Nationality Act.24

    In sum, a President has broad discretion to use written directives when he is lawfully exercising one of his constitutional or statutorily delegated powers. Any broad power or discretion can be abused, but it would be wrong to confuse such potential or real abuse with the many legitimate uses.
    z: “…

    Re Dredd they say that about every president, power being accumulated. 02/27/06 “ICH” — — America is headed for a soft dictatorship by the end of Bush’s second term. Whether any American has civil rights will be decided by the discretionary power of federal officials. The public in general will tolerate the soft dictatorship as its discretionary powers will mainly be felt by those few who challenge it.
    I don’t know this site but first one I found when changed name from Obama to Bush

  4. “They” say that about every preznit and always say it with their eyes closed.

    It makes “them” feel safe because they can vote him out of wait him or her out.

    (As “they” complain they fantasize that they have the power.)

    But “that power he had” stays around after he goes.

    That power stays so “they” can blame the next one for accumulating it.

    Pretty soon “they” are snoring really loud.”

  5. Raff, We are in agreement. We should be patient and see what actions our King, err President takes. But, he’s feeling out his fellow Dems. That is w/o question. Too bad he doesn’t communicate directly w/ them like every other President in history has. He has contempt for politicians, including his own party.

  6. “It is not possible to mock what one does not understand.”

    On the contrary, it would be a very good explanation on why it happens.

  7. Steve H.

    … power is being accumulated by Obama …
    “They” say that about every preznit and always say it with their eyes closed.

    It makes “them” feel safe because they can vote him out of wait him or her out.

    (As “they” complain they fantasize that they have the power.)

    But “that power he had” stays around after he goes.

    That power stays so “they” can blame the next one for accumulating it.

    Pretty soon “they” are snoring really loud.

  8. John,
    I’ve always agreed that is the technically correct interpretation.

    I have a lot to learn and one question that I struggle with is; why would anyone EVER trust government to be immune to the failings of human nature?

  9. John Oliver,

    What if our culture mocked humility? …
    It is not possible to mock what one does not understand.

    So don’t worry about it.

    What is being mocked is an illusion.

    The Wrong-wing thinks it is compromise, and so does the Left-wing.

  10. John,
    Why don’t you just ask Nick because according to him he has the pulse of the Democratic party on the issue of immigration. It might be prudent to actually see what ,if any measures are taken by the Executive branch before we get up in arms.

  11. John Oliver, With liberals, when you say “personal responsibility” and “accountability” they think you’re speaking in tongues.

  12. rafflaw,

    In the context of immigration, what is “for the good of the country?”

    I would say overpopulation is the source of pollution so reducing the population would be very for the good of the country. Immediate and complete deportation would be really good for the country.

    Enforcing the law might be for the good of the country. I think it’s illegal to cross the border without going through the checkpoint. It might be illegal to drive without a driver’s license. Let’s check. Is it for the good of the country that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO HAS A HARDSHIP IS COMPREHENSIVELY PROVIDED FOR BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER? Or just your friends; your victims/martyrs du jour? What are your criteria for the provision of free stuff? Is it good for the country to impose confiscatory taxation to pay for tuition at $25K annually for every illegal alien? Maybe it’s good for striking union teachers/babysitters, translators, immigration attorneys, government-paid healthcare/social services providers, etc.

    Seems like America was established to get rid of tyrannical and oppressive monarchs and you argue to forcibly impose both. You’re in America and you lobby against freedom and self-reliance.

    That dudn’t make any sense!

    If Americans were free, they could privately go all around the world giving their private money away. They could start a private charity. If Americans were free, they’d be free of taxation for anything other than security and infrastructure. If Americans were free, their borders would be protected from invasion.

    Are you saying Americans aren’t and shouldn’t be free? Free of your beliefs and ideas of collectivism and redistribution based on your criteria?

    Do you realize that you destroy ambition, incentive and motivation with every single redistributed penny?

    Can America be FREE and COLLECTIVE?

    Why are your “beliefs” always best and forcibly “imposed” on others?

    In your mind, is the Congress a high speed mill for constant, rapid redistribution legislation 24/7/365…we can’t ever get enough of that good old redistribution, huh? More, more, more, more, more, more, more….!!!! Free stuff forever.

    “For the good of the country.”

    To be sure.

  13. JO – “I began trying to find out what Obama’s vision was for America AFTER this transformation was completed. To this date, I have not seen one person ask Obama what he believed America would look like after it was fundamentally transformed.”

    Interestingly, the Founders required the President be a “natural born citizen” to preclude “foreign allegiances” with attendant adverse motives. The Law of Nations defined natural or native citizens as having “parents,” plural. The Founders increased the wording of the requirement in the Constitution at the last minute to “natural born citizen” from “citizen.” They RAISED it to the highest requirement for the highest office. Obama’s father was a foreign citizen. Few knew Obama’s intentions or motives. Obama apologists deny the relevance of the Law of Nations.

    Below is the Judiciary Act of 1789 which was the subject of the seminal Marbury v. Madison. Clearly there is a literal reference to the “law of nations;”

    “as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations.”

    As the phrase was casually used herein, it appears the “Law of Nations” was on the minds of those who wrote this Act.

    An association with the phrase and the “Law of Nations” itself is demonstrated herein. With Franklin’s letter stating that the “Law of Nations” had been “pounced on” by the Framers and other evidence, a direct American association with the “Law of Nations” is irrefutable. The requirement of two “parents” who were citizens would have precluded the candidacy of the current ineligible President whose intentions are nebulous if not maliciously subversive.

    Additionally, all the Presidents, except one who lied and defrauded, acted

    “consistently with the Law of Nations”

    as both of their parents were citizens.


    1789 Judiciary Act

    SEC . 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise

    consistently with the law of nations;

    and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

  14. Nick Spinelli

    Dems fear the fat Italian.
    Thus, they fear all Italians.

    Rogic … stay thirsty my X friends …

Comments are closed.