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 am just surprised at Mr. Turley and his nitpicking. I always admired him for his wider horizon as far as his thought process is concerned. I have no idea why he has become so myopic in that field.
Yes, sue him for that, Perfect People.
Wasn’t his waiver of employer requirements in the health care law basically a waiver of the taxes those employers were subject to pay if they did not provide qualifying plans?
If it weren’t for the fact that 350M Americans were being affected (mostly negatively) every day by the actions / inactions in Washington DC, things would be almost comical.
The Democrats are robbing the bank and the Republicans are driving the getaway car! Neither one is very well serving the people they were elected to represent.
The President, the Left, and the media howl about The House of Representatives not allowing a vote on ONE “bipartisan” immigration bill sent from the Senate.
Yet at the same time, there is nothing… not a sound… hardly a news story… nothing but crickets chirping… regarding the over 300 “bipartisan” bills sent from the House of Representatives to the Senate that Harry Reid’s secretary deposited in the trash can. Several of those bills directly addressed “immigration” issues as stand alone legislation.
Last I checked, not one illegal immigrant is a constituent of US Government at any level. Not one. So I must ask… Where in the US Constitution does it specify our government has an obligation to enact legislation having the effect of providing benefits mainly for persons who are not citizens?
Put another way… Why would a congress pass legislation or a President utilize an executive order that has even the chance of negatively effecting persons who are constituents while granting positive benefits to persons who are not? It defies logic.
Inga >> “…and to think we are paying them a salary and giving them great healthcare.”
Instead of seeing the wisdom in their single-payer heathcare benefits, I’m afraid that this perq merely exacerbates their overblown expectation of priveleged entitlements for the select few, crumbs for the masses.
Inga >> “Spinelli ‘knows’ everything about everybody.”
Autodidacts frequently overcompensate. I def. get confused as to who’s who, but last night one of them supervised Aryan Nation prisoners.?!?
However, if what I am understood from Chip S.’s last post, and he is a fellow nutmegger, I’ll at least share one thing with him.
One thing Spinelli doesn’t know is that in the entire world outside of No Haven, The Game is “Harvard-Yale”, not t’other way ’round.
Zedalis,
Don’tcha know, Spinelli ‘knows’ everything about everybody.
Spinelli >>> “Too many liberals cannot put politics aside.”
This along with the even more amusing “…the food they eat, where they vacation, w/ whom they associate. ” made me laugh almost as much as the chihuahua video. Just how many is too many? Give us a number so that we can judge your threshold for “too many”. Thanks.
Zedalis, and to think we are paying them a salary and giving them great healthcare.
Ok, so all Democrats care about is getting what they want, and what is a little extra-curricular Executive Order if you get what you want??? Process is for losers. . . Duh! I just did a cartoon on it:
https://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/farside31.png
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Inga, I agree that a bipartisan ‘put up or shut up’ message to Congress is called for. I worked on the Hill for close to ten years (when God was young) and have never seen so much outright inaction dressed up as opposition.
My late father used to tell a somewhat sexist joke about a golfer and his reluctant golf widow which when loosely applied to the current republicon empty suits in Congress would read:
Hit the ball… drag the regressives. Hit the ball…drag the regressives.
zedalis – now the big question is? Are you working on the Hill, now?
Zedalis, I would encourage Democrats to DEMAND that they debate the war powers of the President and stand up for what is right, declare or war or don’t. Take a stand and vote to either deny or approve war funding and then declare a damn war,or don’t. Then we must withdraw all troops from war zones. Republicans absolutely love the idea of Obama using unilateral powers to go to war, so they don’t have to take the blame for it later. I heard that Rand Pal will be introducing a bill calling for a declaration of war against ISIS. I wonder how many of his own party will vote for it? Or will they just keep whining about Obama using unilateral powers regarding the ACA and immigration and ignore war powers? Let’s see some bravery from the Congress.
Trooper, You touch on a great point. Too many liberals cannot put politics aside. It determines the food they eat, where they vacation, w/ whom they associate..EVERYTHING is about politics.
Dog breed popularity go in streaks. Chihuahua’s were hot a few years back, particularly w/ the gays. But, when dogs fall out of favor they get abandoned. There are roving packs of abandoned Chihuahua’s in SF now. No shit. My daughter has one. I pretend to like it. I’m a dog lover, but those ain’t dogs.
Zed sometimes it is good to put politics aside. Then maybe later we can talk to each other rather than past each other. Just sayn’
You see he is a liar.
Of course! All cretins are liars.
That is actually Lem. After he moved to Florida. He had the operation.
trooperyork >>
All politics aside, that is funny.
ChipS w/ the knockou, “Down goes Isaac, down goes Isaac, down goes Isaac!” Said in my best Cosell voice.