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.
isaac’s 11:45 is a prime example of the lies, exaggerations, and focused misinterpretations by Democrat partisans to slap any rationale on anything Obama says or does, no matter what the video evidence shows.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://youtu.be/6yuiuhgTtx8?rel=0&start=148&end=150&autoplay=0&w=640&h=360%5D
What to do?
1. Prepare for the worst.
2. Keep fighting, but don’t get your hopes up.
3. Move to states that still support the rule of law, and have less Ferguson mentality nearby.
4. Get ready for violence.
5. Consider moving to Australia or Canada.
What is really telling here is the manipulation of the meaning of the words. He took an action to change the law is no different than saying he got out of bed. He made a move in the direction that both sides have been demanding, that most people in the US have been demanding, to change the law. He did not say, “I changed the law.”
This is a prime example of the lies, exaggerations, and focused misinterpretations by the Republican party to slap any brush on anything Obama says or does.
Step back at least a foot and read this again. He took action. It is now with the House. The house would rather sue and confuse than come back with a comprehensive proposed law. It is amazing to interact with those that post without thinking. Then that is what you do when you want what you want regardless. All Obama did was move forward the opportunity for both sides to come up with a comprehensive approach to an ongoing multifaceted problem. It is temporary and an instigation. Bravo Mr. President. Now that you have the ball, all the Republicans, are you going to drop it, trip over your tongue, or take it in for some points. What is truly amazing is that right now the Republicans have an opportunity to craft a bill that would eclipse what Obama has done, because of what he has done, an opportunity to make positive history, but instead they continue ranting and raving.
This is the best place for me.
The it works is that Congress passes an Immigration law and the President signs it. They are not there to be a rubber stamp. There are trade offs. They trade a fence and strict enforcement for a path to citizenship for law breakers that are already here. Obama doesn’t want to go through the process. He has never really tried. His response was “I won.” Do it his way. If they don’t “He has a pen and he has a telephone.”
Congress has it’s own prerogatives. They need to exercise them in the name of the Constitution.
Barack Obama treats the Constitution as if it was a liquor store in Ferguson. He just wants to burn it down.
Does anybody remember the term”an act of congress”? Our government was designed to be safe, not fast.
So Pogo, drop the nihilism and tell us what you think should be done. Try to be positive, I know it’s hard.
Why would I trust people who redefine penalties as “taxes”?
SCOTUS is over half banana republic already.
Few are left that think the the written word actually means anything.
I know you trust the SC, right Pogo?
What makes Obama such a dangerous president is his charisma. Liberalism relies on government coercion to give advantages to certain classes of people that they would not get in a society in which the role of government is to preserve and defend liberty. So the liberal leader relies almost exclusively on charismatic emotional rhetoric to create divides, or victims: rich vs. poor, men vs women, black vs white. gay vs straight, legal vs. illegal immigrants, etc. His goal is not to preserve and defend liberty for all, but to use government coercion to reward “victims” in exchange for preserving his power. In this case we have the vile and putrid example of the president going above the law to reward people who have not even legally voted for him (or any other government policy maker) and who do not pay the policy makers salaries. It is not only a form of tyranny, it is literally treason in that he is acting in the interest of foreign nationals, not U.S. citizens.
So the charismatic liberal leader plays on emotion to set himself up as some sort of sainted Robin Hood looking out for victims. And if he has to usurp power from the legislative and judicial branches the social justice warriors and pseudo intellectuals excuse him because it is “the right thing to do”. He’s acting on behalf of the oppressed victims, just like Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, and Hitler acted on behalf of oppressed victims.
As Albert Camus said, “the alibi of tyranny is the welfare of the people”.
What’s funny is that most of the lefties pushing for a socialist banana republic actually think they’re going to be among the pigs that are more equal than other pigs, come the revolution.
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
You’re among the useful idiots (see: Gruber), offal to be cast aside once the insiders gain power. Make no mistake: the insiders are already inside the economic gates. All you did was build the fence.
They thank you for your efforts.
What if the courts say Obama didn’t usurp his authority? What then?
Bienvenidos a Venezuela!
What if the courts say Obama didn’t usurp his authority? What then? Impeach the Justices? I say yes to impeachment! The Constitution allows us to rein in those who don’t abide by its dictates.
We will have to wait to see how these actions are interpreted, by the courts, not semantics.
So when President Mumblecore inadvertently tells the truth, it’s a semantic quibble to point that out?
Glad to see that you’re on board w/ the House lawsuit, tho.
Inga/Annie,
He won’t be impeached for the same reason that Democrats took impeachment off the table with Bush. We are in a constitutional crisis and have been for a long time.
We have to stand up and speak truth to power. Otherwise this nation will fail. I don’t think the Republicans are suing Obama because they really give a crap. It’s just a show for Democratic and Republican partisans alike. There is one party with two names.
However there are two things to consider: 1. JT is not doing this for show and Republicans may regret having him as their lawyer because he is doing this from principle 2. Just because powerful Republicans are insincere, (as are powerful Democrats), it doesn’t follow that citizens should be insincere and bow down to what is wrong in the name of their party leader. It’s time to stand up and be counted as a citizen who believes in the rule of law.
The bottom line is that Obama’s office and all those in favor says they didn’t and his enemies, the Republicans, and all those opposed says he did. The laws made by men are interpreted by men. We will have to wait to see how these actions are interpreted, by the courts, not semantics.
Fair is fair.
Megyn Kelly has pointed out that any president can now suspend all prosecution of protestors at abortion clinics. Change the capital gains tax. Change the tax code. Send nuclear technology to Iran. Whatever they want.
Would they then look back on this precedent and still be happy and smug?
Slohrss:
I didn’t hear that joke. Does it go something like Obama polishing his drones on the kitchen table, telling a young man, “Now, make sure my daughter gets home on time, has fun, keep your hands to yourself, and don’t do anything to upset her, hear?”
Because I’m pretty sure that’s what all dads would do in that scenario!
Jill, that pretty much sums up how I feel. Plus, there is the bad joke about his daughters, dating, and drones, which I thought was terrible and enlightening. But, I still insist the dominoes are set in the world right now, and our bumbling prez may yet start this century’s cataclysm, but it seems to me he is still setting the stage for what is to come.
Just be brave and impeach him Republicans. If he’s imperial he should be impeached. If the next President is imperial we can impeach him too. That’s what the Constitution provides for, no?
Bailers:
I believe it was 7/24 or 7/26 on Prof Turley’s blog where Gruber was caught on video saying that the wording of Obamacare deliberately required the states to set up their own exchanges for subsidies. It was the carrot and stick approach.
Now he’s adamantly claiming it’s a typo and the video was an off the cuff unfortunate speak-o.