Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Society

Obama: “I Just Took An Action To Change The Law” On Immigration

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 9.27.01 AMThere 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.

232 thoughts on “Obama: “I Just Took An Action To Change The Law” On Immigration”

  3. Dispatches from the alternate universe inside isaac’s brain:

    “He did not change the law!!! He took an action to change the law.”

    “Nitpicking is a great distraction when searching for core problems.”

  4. This republicon Punch and Judy show is designed strictly for the entertainment of the googly-eyed fox watchers. It appears to approximate legitimate legislative action to address a national problem, which in the conservative lexicon reads as apostasy. Never have republicons been more synonymous with a deer caught in the headlights, afraid to move either way for fear of a wrong choice.

    It’s a shame Turley has been drawn into the orbit of the now quite hefty mass fruitless republicon lawsuits. DOMA, anyone?

    1. zedalis – does your IP address go back to the WH or one of the administrative agencies? You are talking the party line now.

  6. Pogo,
    I’ve got relatives in both countries who could sponsor me! Australia is nice and warm, sounds good. But I would never leave my entire immediate family. If they’re going to die, I’ll die right along with them.

  7. schloss 29

    “Laws are made to be toughed out.” Laws are made by elected representatives: Senators, Congresspeople, and Presidents. Kind of like making sausage. The smell changes from action to inaction, from bad t really bad.

  8. Bailers >>> “The only difference between what the NRA does and Sierra Club is your perspective on who is fighting for a good or worthwhile cause.”

    Unless you consider the old ‘body count’ metric or include a clean conscience and bloodless hands as being either good or worthwhile.

    PHAW >>> “…SCOTUS is over half banana republic already.”

    Because turning our once proud nation into a garden variety despotic regime that kidnaps and tortures prisoners was in no way responsible for making our country a banana republic. That’s different.

    trooperyork >>> “We all know that why it is important to enable immigration.

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1″; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));”

    Um, to have more facebook friends?

  9. squeaky

    He did not change the law!!! He took an action to change the law. Did not act against the law. No law breaking here. You can read into it what you will. Obama shook things up. If the House wants to win on this, they can either move forward, craft a ‘law’ and present it. Obama is forcing the issue. Good for him. This also applies to the ACA. If the House, now that it is Republican, wants to ‘fix’ things then let them come forward with a better idea. For six years the Republican party has done nothing but obstruct. When you offer no solutions whatsoever, do you get to obstruct? Well, obviously. But, at what cost? The Republicans refused to go forward on the budget unless they got what they wanted. That is holding the best interests of the nation regarding the financing of the entire system, hostage. That can be construed as a terrorist act. Where are all the lawyers?

    The solution to this immigration problem is for the House to put forth a squeaky clean, intelligent, proposal to lock down the borders based on the existing physical situation at the border. This should have nothing to do with contingencies, bundling, or any political aspirations. If the proposal makes sense, then Obama should sign it. If he doesn’t then yell and scream. The route is clear, Senate, Congress, then President. What an accomplishment that would be after six years of obstructionist policy.

    Then, after that accomplishment, the House can propose a bill to deal with the status of the 11 million ‘whatever you want to call them’. This is where the problems lie. However, stop the leaks, then talk about the direction of the ship. You complain when Obama does something but when the Republicans do nothing but complain and come up with no solutions then all you have done is harness that force of frustration, the frustration that you caused. That is why the Republicans won the Senate. Enough frustrated voters 33%+/- made it to the polls. It is amazing what can be accomplished with so little. Here if Florida, a slight majority reelected the biggest thief in US history, Rick Scott, a man who defrauded the taxpayer of over $250,000,000 in medicaid and medicare billing. Oh by the way, a Republican and he created of the largest health insurance company in the US as well as the largest fraud against the people, you know private sector, you know why no other country is stupid enough to allow the foxes to guard the henhouse. But, he had great lawyers that could manipulate the law and refusing to answer, as is his right, a couple dozen times plus millions for lawyers equals Governor of Florida, twice.

    Of course I am venting.

  10. A libertarian President could well make George Steph’s hypothetical true, signing an EO lowering taxes.

  11. I don’t know really what to say . I had seen the same person before as well , empty words , patronizing way of interacting with people , but I guess some find that way of interacting as “eloquent” and “charismatic” . My opinion has not changed over the years , but it seems like more people are starting to see those traits now . I doubt people would have been this kind to him to continue to support him , with all the traits that he exhibited in an accelerated fashion now , if he was white . He could have made significant improvements in the system with all the support he had , and his race was a positive thing for him as it made a lot of people don’t say anything about his capacity because of being labelled as a racist, but sadly he destroyed the confidence of people in politicians even more .

  12. Someone said they were leaving here, but they remain. Lying is part of the cult culture.

  13. Fewer banana socialists and Fergusons.
    You have to work with what you got, Inga.
    My country died in 2008.
    Socialism in its many forms runs wild throughout the world.

    Right now, Canada and Australia are the least bad of my choices.

  14. Inga
    What if the courts say Obama didn’t usurp his authority? What then?
    ——————–
    Then God save the Republic when the next President, from EITHER party, is elected and decides to set policy without input from Congress.

  15. Pogo, both Australia and Canada have national healthcare, you’re not going to like it there.

    1. Inga – I cannot speak for Australia, but Canada has a private system as well. People with money use that one. Same as in England where the NHS sucks.

  16. Does anyone, save a few, understand time is involved here, and going forward, this is not good? It seems as though a lot of folk here don’t seem to be able to look ahead, just at the main event in hand.

    Issac, I personally am not “either side.” I am also not for any of the President’s policies. And there are a lot of us. You forget you are a subset of people who exist in the flat land known as the two-party system. There are those of us who look at that this system in total defiance. Ind. Bob above makes a good point. Laws are to be toughed out, and one of the safeguards is that if there is no conclusion either way, a law won’t happen.

    Jill also notes that if the Republicans are not sincere (gee, could that possibly be…), they might not realize where this road is going to take them, and may not be happy at all when they get there.

  17. We all know that why it is important to enable immigration.

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
    Post by Today.it.

  18. @Isaac

    Let’s pretend for a moment that you have an open mind, and make a cursory examination of a legal term related to the article! To wit, [with emphasis]:

    An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a “startling event”. It is an exception to the hearsay rule.[1] The statement must be spontaneously made by the person (the declarant) while still under the stress of excitement from the event or condition. The subject matter and content of the statement must “relate to” event or condition. The statement could be a description or explanation (as required for present sense impression), or an opinion or inference. Examples include: “Look out! We’re going to crash!” or “I think he’s crazy. He’s shooting at us!” The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be premeditated falsehoods.

    Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an excited utterance is a hearsay exception, and is admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself (e.g., in the case of the first quotation above, to prove that the vehicle the declarant was riding in was, in fact, about to crash). To prove the truth of the statement means to persuade the finder of fact to believe the affirmative sense of the statement. “Truth” here does not mean truth from the subjective point of view of the declarant or from the objective point of view of a reasonably prudent person. It simply refers to the affirmative assertion of the statement.

    More at the link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterance

    The point is, we now have a legitimate legal basis to that believe Obama’s exclamation, “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.”- – – reasonably expresses the President’s REAL opinion of his conduct!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    (PS: Shouldn’t I get Brownie Points for making an actual legal> comment on a legal blog???)

  20. Isaac, like Schumer recently said about Obamacare, the Democrats “erred'” that ““After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus”.

    And now they’re laser-like focus shifts -not to the sluggish economy and high unemployment, or even the race riots- no, it shifts to a topic of minimal comparative importance: immigration.

    Bull on the ‘ball I their court’ argument. No one wants this done except lefties and Corporate billionaires.

Comments are closed.