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.
Malingerers? Really? Wow, how do you think that LeeJCaroll would like hearing you call her a malingerer? Unbelievable. Truly vile. I worked for 35 years as a nurse, you have something to say to me big man? Some people are supported by their spouses and use squat on their spouses health insurance. Is that a form of malingering too?
Karen, All those malingerers on SS Disability getting Medicare is something LBJ never envisioned. That was before this country became overwhelmed w/ attorneys and a few aches and pains meant you are disabled. That’s a major factor in Medicare going bankrupt.
see how nice muslim laws are, they do not even order stoning in this case, just 26 years…:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/11/26/Pakistan-Sentences-Bollywood-Actress-Husband-to-26-Years-in-Prison-for-Blasphemous-Dance
Darren, he would just say that you are playing politics, if anyone challenges him. Remember how he answered a reporter, after first election, when he was questioned about what has changed about HRC who according to you had no Foreign Policy credentials and now you are choosing her as SOS. He ridiculed the journalist for having asked a legitimate question , and rest of the press laughed with him at the reporter, rather than the other way …..
Darren, I would pay to see JT depose him. You can’t have a teleprompter when deposed.
ChipS, I know you’re a Crimson grad. But, my old man and I went to many YALE v Harvard games @ The Bowl. We went to The Game in New Haven the year prior to the famous 29-29 tie. Yale won that game. I listened to the 29-29 game. I think we discussed the HBO doc about that game?
If there could ever be the opportunity to engage the president in a deposition, I doubt he would hold up to the questioning on this matter.
Inga, (*slaps forehead), I finally got your avatar. I guess I already knew that you were preternaturally cool and calm under pressure.
He is making the case against him easier by such statements.
Karen, what would your family have done with your sister without the Medicaid she received, as you have said several times now in these discussions?
Paul C. Schulte – – I’m assuming that I won’t offend by dropping the whole ‘Your Excellency” thing:
My IP address should trace back to the deep south and no, I haven’t worked in politics since the mid eighties. The closest I ever got to the WH (besdes driving by it daily) was making tennis dates, for my immediate boss at the time, with Ham Jordan.
I even worked for and deeply respected my employer, a Republican moderate, go figure.
zedalis – so somewhere along the line you picked up the WH party line. Are you one their mailing list?
That’s nice Paul. I guess you couldn’t go to Australia either since you are in the same boat I’m in. 🙂
Inga >> “… both Australia and Canada have national healthcare, you’re not going to like it there.”
Why would anyone want to live those countries that, along with the United Kingdom, have national health and a higher overall life expectancy than does the good ol USA?
Zedalis: Well said. You are right, Why bother! 🙂
As far as immigration reform is concerned both parties want to be first because they both want the Latino vote. POTUS told Congress to pass a bill, but will not wait for the next session because he doesn’t want Republicans to get the credit and he doesn’t want to be the bad guy who vetoes immigration legislation. His solution is to trample the Constitution and change the law himself.
First they said that he never changed a law, now when he admitted himself that he has , they say what is wrong with us that we are so “myopic” . Stay classy people!;-)
I can understand why immigrants from other countries may not understand the importance of our constitution, but it is appalling that our own president and his supporters are dismissive of it.
Paul: Are you from the UK ?
It is irresponsible to clamor for single payor, while Medicare is set to run out of money in a few years, and the VA literally killed people by making them wait months for care.
What has government done so far? Overpaid for a website that STILL under delivers and lacked proper security. It takes 8 VA doctors to do the case load of a single private practice cardiologist because the government model rewards neither merit nor hard work nor quality of outcome. It just blindly shovels money. And government workers must have a robust internal sense of duty to resist the encroachment of sloth, because they get paid the same no matter what they do, and it’s almost impossible to fire them.
Heck, people actually died because of fraud at the VA, and as far as I know, no government employee responsible was fired. Shinsiki resigned, but that’s it.
Paul – well, it does have lovely scenery, and is fabulous horse country.
I did not change the tire! I used a jack to change the tire!
isaac:
“He did not change the law!!! He took an action to change the law.”
You are literally arguing about a distinction without a difference.
If Obama had gone behind Congress on an issue you vehemently disagreed with, would you be OK with questioning it then? Or is it just OK because you agreed with the outcome?
We are all directed to question abuse of power by our President. We have a duty to defend the Constitution and our Republic. Professor Turley has taken an important first step and brought suit in court. We’ll just have to see how it unfolds.
Dictators often rise at the will of the people. Hopefully we can reign this in before more Constitutional carnage takes place.