The Washington Post has published a hard-hitting editorial that not only accuses the Obama Administration of fudging the figures on its unilateral immigration changes but calls the action “unprecedented” and “indefensible.” The stinging editorial from a generally favorable newspaper amplifies the criticism of others, including myself, that President Obama is doing considerable damage to the separation of powers and, more generally, our constitutional system in these actions.
The Post details what it views as highly suspicious figures coming out of the Administration — a continuing problem raised by critics in various controversies that has reduced the credibility of the Administration as a whole. The Administration is using a figure of affected persons that it says puts the scope of its action in line with changes made by President George Bush — a claim repeated on various commentators and bloggers. However, the Post says “there is every reason to believe that the estimate is wildly exaggerated and based mainly on what appears to have been a misunderstanding at the time.”
While the Post supports changes in immigration and criticizes the Republicans in the House of Representatives, it insists that that does not alter the fact that President Obama is taking “unprecedented” action:
Republicans’ failure to address immigration also does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act. Unlike Mr. Bush in 1990, whose much more modest order was in step with legislation recently and subsequently enacted by Congress, Mr. Obama’s move flies in the face of congressional intent — no matter how indefensible that intent looks.
“President Obama has been the one who’s willing to compromise, not the GOP.”
Technical question for you Barry: If the President NEVER gets the legislation he wants, does he have the authority to create it himself? Okay, another question: Is Congress obligated to the will of the Executive branch or to the will of the People?
Olly
“The People spoke BEFORE Obama (which is the way our system works) and said what they want.”
Ah, yes – 2006 was not a mandate, nor was 2008. 2010 was a mandate, as was 2014, but not 2012.
First, Mr. Turley, anybody quoting the Washington Post’s editorial page is on thing ice, unless they’ve apologized for their frothing cheerleading for the Iraq War and have filed those columnists.
Second, Reagan.
Steve H.:
“In other words, “send me a bill that gives me everything I want or I’ll just take everything I want on my own.” Obama is so phony.”
Which he did not say, and President Obama has been the one who’s willing to compromise, not the GOP.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/11/12675/should-obama-use-executive-action-immigration-ask-ronald-reagan
Reagan went AGAINST Congress’ intent in his deferred deportment executive order.
Inga, That is not quite true. Your interpretation would mean that the parents would get amnesty, but their MINOR children would not. Thus the US would have to deport children away from their parents custody! That also flies against US law as well. So there is an inherent conflict of US law, which Reagan resolved in a common sense way.
There is a big difference between not enforcing some inadvertent mistake or misprint that contradicts the intent of a law, and a wholesale repeal of it by presidential fiat. I find it hypocritical of some here who blast Obama for not enforcing a bad part of the ACA, and then criticizing him for not strictly enforcing what members of the GOP complained about. That said, it is also disingenuous for the supporters of Obama’s refusal to enforce the law to cite the previous actions of Presidents for doing what Obama did by citing the previous instances of Presidential orders which clearly FOLLOWED Congress’ intent. I have to agree that this is way out of the ordinary and should be addressed by Congress in the courts or on the floor of Congress. Either way, this is one precedent that cannot be allowed to stand.
Zach, if you’re going to offer criticism try to offer constructive criticism. Or at the very least, something grounded in reality. This blog has been critical of the administrations oversteps long before the current court case. And Prof. Turley has been a longtime critic of many examples of executive overreach.
I would argue that using executive fiat to introduce changes to the immigration system is not the humane answer. Especially when those changes can easily be undone by the next President with the stroke of pen. I wonder how accommodating the Presidents supporters would be if the next elected official uses executive action to, for example, state that sexual assault and harassment at colleges is not subject to Title VII?
Zack,
Do you believe in the rule of law?
whoah this blog is excellent i love reading your posts. Keep up the good work! You know, a lot of persons are searching round for this info, you could aid them greatly.
Barkindog,
The People spoke BEFORE Obama (which is the way our system works) and said what they want. This President’s style of negotiation is not much different than that of ISIS: Instead of a knife, he has a pen and a phone. He’s taking our constitution hostage and there is no negotiating with this tyrant. It’s give HIM what HE wants or else.
Is this the form of government that is representative of the People? Hell no!
People elected him twice , that is the most concerning part to me , and much more dangerous , as that means we can end up having another person like this in the whitehouse in 2016.
A future president?
Rev. Al Sharpton has the answer. NJ Gov. Chris Christie.
Despite “damaging ” the country and setting a bad example , our leaders of the opposition still won’t consider taking a punitive action that is required to fix things …? Does not that mean that another less evolved president in the future will use the actions of this president to justify his , and will be even easier for the following presidents of this breed to totally destroy the country ? If that’s the case then why not do something corrective now ? Not now because of the skin color ? Not now because what the MSM would do if someone contemplates a punitive action ? But there won’t be a United States if this behavior is not checked right now , isn’t that important to consider ?
I think it contorted logic to say, our President is looking out for the people, the nation and the constitution by blackmailing Congress to stop him from taking an illegal action. He is harming the Constitution and setting a harmful precedent, if he is not stopped. Future Presidents will follow his suit and take unconstitutional actions which many will find objectionable when their favered laws are not enforced.
First of all, Dog, Obama has repeatedly said to the Congress “send me a bill that I can sign” and he’ll undo the unilateral action. “[T]hat I can sign” means a bill that he likes, not just a bill. In other words, “send me a bill that gives me everything I want or I’ll just take everything I want on my own.” Obama is so phony.
I will point out to Dog and Isaac that the Reps are winning the country. Colorado is now RED, Arkansas is now DEEP RED, Louisiana is now RED, West Virginia is now RED. We increased our hold on state legislatures and our number of Governors. The hated WI Walker and the hated OH Kasich all won reelection easily. The Dems childish excuses of “our message wasn’t clear” and “the map” and “racist voter ID laws” are baloney. America overwhelmingly supports the GOP’s approach to Obama and his agenda: STOP HIM.
And so we will.
The legislation will only work if Obama signs it. Congress cannot work on their own.
Agree with BarkinDog as usual
Obama gave a speech in prime time but ABC, NBC, CBS boycotted. I saw the whole thing on Fox for Chris sake. It was good. You over look something about his speech. He looked at the camera and at Congress and said that they can change anything he does by his Executive action with Legislation. He was goading them into doing something. It might take Executive actions to make them get off the Congressional Arse. This was all straightforward but the media ignored it because they ignored his speech. Ignore, ignore. Ignorance is bliss.
I love it when people say illegal actions are ok because I like them. Shows what they are really like.
Our Constitution gives very limited ability for the Prez to act on his own. Inaction on any particular item of interest to the Prez by Congress is not one of those reasons. Inaction by Congress is a political question. We just had an election and the people spoke, they apparently like it when Congress does not pass bills. Unlike the lying by the Prez prior to the election, the Repos told us exactly what they will (or won’t) do. The people choose.
Chief Justice Roberts said as much with the ACA ruling a few years ago. He said Congress has taxing authority and can tax things or they can tax not using things, what they tax is a political question. Your vote means something. Disobeying the Constitution will have its repercussions only if we the people demand our Government be held accountable. Will we?
He got the ball rolling. Now let’s see the Republicans come back with a plan that not only encompasses all that Obama did but contains moves to address all of the issues. The only plan the Republicans had up until now was to garner power and hold the American people hostage until they got more power and could get their way. For six years the Republicans have been using the my way or the highway approach by opposing anything and everything Obama has put forth. The Republicans have a choice, they can either add more muck to the quagmire they have been working on, or work responsibly and put together bills that will pass the Senate and the Congress. Openly present something to the President to sign. Let America see the results of some proper governance, not more whining and time wasting. As the logjam in Washington gets worse, the problems get worse. Put something together and present it to the President, then complain. As far as what Obama has done, is doing, and will do, as being unprecedented, it is probably unprecedented to have created such a successful recovery from such a devastating and shameful period of ruin as the US experienced during the eight years of the three stooges.
Violates separation of powers.