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”

  1. JT: Would you like to share what is your point writing this blog on this subject when you already have a suit to sue President Obama on ACA as a chief lawyer of GOP congress?

    Is there any conflict of interest here?

    As it is public money being spent on you, please let us know how much we are paying you? Thanks

    1. zedalis – you can take your pick. If this is your best behavior I would hate to see your worst.

  2. Paul,

    on 1, November 26, 2014 at 5:50 pmInga
    CORRECTION: I worked damn hard as a nurse for 35 YEARS.

    **************************
    Sigh.

  3. It would seem that there are those who have no intention of conducting themselves in a respectful and dignified manner on this website and will continue to insult others as a matter of spite.

  4. @xyz

    If there is a link, then please let me know. I was under the impression that Reagan was simply fixing a “flaw” in the bill, with the blessing of Congress. If however, there was resistance to that portion, and it was intentionally left out of the bill, then that doesn’t make either what Reagan or Obama did “right”, but it does take Obama out of the “nobody’s ever done this before” charge.

    I still think what Obama is doing is wrong. First, I don’t see how you can really establish who has been here 5 years, and who hasn’t. Therefore, everybody who speaks a foreign language will be lying like dogs about how long they have been here. How do you document an undocumented person??? The estimated 5 million will end up being 10 million if I am any judge of things.

    And make no mistake about it, significant numbers of these people will vote in elections, particularly where there are Democratic machines operating. This will probably tilt several states back to the Democrats. Any attempt to cross reference Green Cards to voter registration will be characterized as “racist” by the Democrats. Hopefully, enough blue collar Democrats will be pissed off enough to leave the Democratic Party.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  6. squeeky, there was already a new law at that time: ” illegal aliens may be allowed to stay in the United States if they have immediate relatives who qualify for amnesty UNDER THE NEW IMMIGRATION LAW”.

  7. You’re welcome Squeekers, you’re on my good side today ya know. 😀 I love it when you talk about your liberal side.

  8. Yes indeed Karen, check your email so Spinelli can tell you about things he ‘knows’.

  10. @Inga

    Thank you for the link. Unless I see something with further distinguishes Reagan’s EO from Obama’s, I will stop giving Obama hell about this. I am assuming the issue about the kids was not just a “flaw” in the bill.

    But, I will keep on giving Obama heck about the number of people involved and the affirmative act of granting Green Cards.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  14. Karen, also, I was NOT injured. I have two forms of arthritis, one is Rheumatoid which is an autoimmune disorder and the other is Degenerative Joint and Disc Disease which is from wear and tear or even genetic.

  16. DBQ – I was asking where in the Constitution (which I assume Turleys nuisance suit is based upon) does it say an Executive Order must be signed either with the blessing of Congress, and lacking such a citation, I’m sure you will guess why “whats good for the goose is good for the gander” might be the precise maxim with which to sum up the extended whining.

  17. Paul, I had thought New Zealand, but they’re nuttier liberals than ours. A nuclear-powered ship is not allowed in their harbor. So if they have a national catastrophe, we can’t bring anything.

    Inga, The problem with passing anything is Obama does not talk to them. Governing requires communication, not a toddler’s reaction to dropped ice cream. Also, I have decided I am a racist. I don’t like white people and Obama is half white so,I can’t stand him!

    It seems EO’s become necessary because the process in Congress is too damned slow. How about bring Congress into the 21st century? The Senate worked for many years without air-conditioning. Why did the Senate allow that change? Streamline the process a bit. A vote on a rule, then a vote to pass the rules, then another vote to begin debate on a bill. One vote to do all that.

    I agree immigration should be changed. But not willy-nilly like Big O wants. The big stopper is citizenship. Which is about politics. So get that out. It can be brought up anytime. After the period of time we allow them to self-identify, do we deport the ones who didn’t? Without that, why do this at all?
    .

    1. Sandi – you do have an excellent point. All of DC changed with the advent of air conditioning. If we banned air condition from all government buildings, we could change government forever.

  18. Karen I suspected your comment was about me because there are people here who make veiled insults and slurs about other’s all the time. Spinelli is one of those people, you associate yourself with him, which makes me suspect you too in all honesty. Now let’s drop it before Darren has to lecture us again.

  19. This matters in a Constitutional sense, why?

    Because Congress is the body that makes and amends existing laws according to the Constitution.

Comments are closed.