There was an unscripted moment for President Barack Obama yesterday that might make Justice Department lawyers defending the recent unilateral changes to immigration laws a bit uneasy. The President was faced with an understandably annoying problem of hecklers who interrupted his speech demanding an end to deportations of anyone. The President responded with a clearly justified admonishment that they should let him speak, but he added in obvious frustration “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.” That is what the Administration lawyers have striven to deny. They are insisting that this was not a change in law (which is a legislative act) but the exercise of discretion allowed under the law.
I have to say that I have always admired how the President handled such hecklers. He stay calm and respectful despite dealing with some pretty rude characters in the past.
President Obama admonished the protesters initially by saying “Don’t just start yelling, young ladies . . . I let you holler . . . You’ve got to listen to me too.” He then said “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.”
His other statement was more in line with the legal position of the Administration: “Although I disagree with some of your characterizations, it does not make much sense to yell at me right now, when we are making changes.”
Here is the encounter:
The statement comes after another statement earlier where the President seemed to draw an uncertain line over when he is entitled to act unilaterally and when he is not. The statement came in an excellent interview by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos where President Obama made some strong points. However, Stephanopoulos asked Obama: “How do you respond to the argument, a future president comes in, wants lower taxes. Doesn’t happen. Congress won’t do it — he says I’m not going to prosecute those who don’t pay capital gains tax.” When the President did not address that question, Stephanopoulos pressed again “So you don’t think it’d be legitimate for a future president to make that argument?” The President responded “With respect to taxes? Absolutely not.” Despite the President’s skills in argument, the separation-of-powers question is how that line is drawn from taxes to health care to online gambling to immigration etc.
I admire most the people who can set aside their personal politics, and have the courage to call foul when they see it. Their inner sense of rightness is not inhibited by politics.
What I think hilarious is when desperate supporters claim that anyone who criticizes the president, doesn’t agree with his policies, or believes he has broken the law are racist.
He just admitted he changed the law, but wait and see the usual race card played daily in the media and blog posts.
“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.”
Well, right. That’s what we’ve all been saying.
He’s a dictator. We will either allow him to rise further, or brave people like Professor Turley will say enough.
African American youth has an unemployment rate of 26%, last time I checked. And Obama just allowed 5 million illegal aliens the right to work.
Wonder how long the community will continue their blind faith in a leader that keeps betraying them. Keeps making the job market harder for them, but dumping in more people to compete for those dwindling jobs.
It should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that immigration should be lower in tough economic times, and higher when the economy booms.
Steve H.
Only when you follow laws made by gods. Otherwise, if laws are made by men then they can be changed and/or manipulated by men. When they are changed for the worse, then that is chaos. When they are changed for the better, then that is social evolution. Think about the meaning behind the words and don’t bushwhack. There are already enough bushwhackers on this blog.
Jill,
You are absolute correct. And I give credit to ABC for challenging him on his use of executive fiat to change law in practice if not words. The short sighted nature of many of the President’s defenders is just amazing. They must realize that at some point, a Republican will be elected president. Are they going to be so welcoming to changes made by executive order when that happens?
Finally, the President speaks the truth. When you get him off script you get what he really thinks. This is golden.
Unlike many of Obama’s citizen admirers, I have never thought of Obama as a benign person, only out for the welfare of the poor and downtrodden. I can’t square that image with his torture in Gitmo, his drone kills in many Muslim nations and his economic policies which are wiping out everyone from the middle class to the poorest of the poor. So honestly, I don’t worry about the next president being a crazed dictator. I worry about the current president.
That said, for those who do believe in Obama’s innate goodness/beneficence and wonderfulness, I can’t help but wonder what they believe will happen when the “law” has been changed and an evil, dastardly, jerk gets in power. What then? The precedent is established. So this either stops here or it will continue and it will be part of the presidential prerogative of a bad (meaning of the wrong party) president.
I urge admirers to regard two things: 1. is this really a munificent, benign, super wonderful guy who just happens to engage in drone kills, torture and economic injustice and 2. do you want these powers given to the next president from the “wrong” party who will also drone kill, torture and commit economic injustice?
It’s time to take a stand as citizens, not as partisans but as people who support the rule of law.
I’m firmly of the belief that Isaac works for President Obama’s re-election campaign. That’s the only way I can square his constant defense of the indefensible.
““A well REGULATED militia” and focuses on “The right to bear arms” resulting in oligarchs and special interest groups such as the NRA fighting against REGULATIONS.”
You are missing the point. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said you CAN regulate firearms, just not outright ban them or make conditions of ownership so burdensome that it has the practice of a ban. It is the reason we have waiting periods, outright ban of fully automatic weapons and restrictions on use and ownership.
And of course a special interest group is fighting for their side. The only difference between what the NRA does and Sierra Club is your perspective on who is fighting for a good or worthwhile cause.
Isaac: Did you really say “True greatness is when a society does not take refuge in the law but does what is right at the moment for the moment.”?
That, sir, is ridiculous. Laws are how a society defines what is right for all members of the society, for all time. Mobs define what is right for the moment. If the laws need to change, then society, not a single person, makes the change.
Your statement defines liberalism: we should do “what is right at the moment for the moment.” Obama embodies liberalism: I am the Decider of what is right at the moment, at any moment, and at every moment.
His executive action is an action to change the law. It is intended in part to prod the Congress to get off its arse and pass legislation. He stated that in his opening speech the other night. Clear as a bell. He told Congress to pass a law and it can undo anything we do here.
[music- to Henry The 8th I am]
Congress needs to get off its arse
Fat and jolly big as a horse.
McCain is married to the weeper next door..
His names Boner and he’s just a door.
Isaac, “Nitpick.” You’re lack of legal knowledge is showing.
Pogo, That’s why I call them cultists, following the Rev. Jim Jones like preacher.
Very lame Turley, very lame. For someone who touts himself as an advocate of the law, you nitpick here. Nitpicking is a great distraction when searching for core problems. The law was made by men and is manipulated daily by men. This is the nature of the law, to be interpreted. When the wind is blowing to the right the Supreme Court ignores “A well REGULATED militia” and focuses on “The right to bear arms” resulting in oligarchs and special interest groups such as the NRA fighting against REGULATIONS. The rights of individuals to control politicians by contributing limitless amounts of money is given to corporations which are, somehow through legal mumbo jumbo, seen as individuals. When the wind is blowing left, women have the right to terminate life in their womb, call it what you will, and African Americans obtain equal rights.
I enjoy your blog for the very reason that it pits that which creates laws against those very laws as seen by those born out of the legal system. True greatness is when a society does not take refuge in the law but does what is right at the moment for the moment. Obama is above the law, yes, thank heaven. Bush was above the law, and we went in the other direction. Now, don’t start asking for precedents or to cite this or that.
No worries, some Justice will pull a tax-not-a-penalty, and this gaffe will be seen as proof why he didn’t change the law at all.
The left does not revere Obama because he’s right, he’s right because they revere him. It’s a form of worship. He can’t be wrong, because then they’d be wrong.
I’m looking for an amended complaint on The Lawsuit from JT!! And, I think it should be afforded the respect of The Lawsuit like Yale/Harvard is The Game.
The plain and obvious truth as Freudian slip.
Just like with Grueber, it’s the unscripted moments where we finally get an inkling of the truth.
I don’t care who the president is in 2017. It just can’t come soon enough to get this absolute liar and dredge of a president out of office. I wouldn’t believe him if he told me the sun rises in the east.
Unfortunately for the defenders of Mr O, those words will go in one ear and out the other along with all his other lies. What a shame people can’t put politics down, read the Constitution, and draw a conclusion. And yes indeed, Mr. Bush (1 and 2), Mr C, Mr R, and quite a few of the rest have also lied and broken their Constitutional oath. The People have the power to change but all they can see when they vote are Rs and Ds, What a shame.
Point made. Now that Senator McNuts wants his puppet from South Carolina to run for Prez, it’s really time to push back now on this executive privilege. I’m sure that duo’s action won’t be as benevolent as rewriting one of the largest aspects of the economy. I don’t believe I can think of a worse scenario, heck even Stalin and Hitler had to work harder than those two will have to.
Oops. “Line in the sand” unscripted also comes to mind. Can’t you just hear aids always pleading, “PLEASE stick to the teleprompter and talking points, Mr. Prez..”