Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Media Confused about Obama’s Unconstitutional Order
Confusion about the President’s immigration order is not limited to the mainstream media. For those who want to see a debate between constitutional law specialists, the Federalist Society had an interesting panel on the topic of the President’s duty to enforce the laws last week:
Another interesting detail is how the media characterized the panel, which expressed important doubts about the President’s constitutional authority. The Huffington Post, for example, ran a story as if the Federalist Society itself supported President Obama’s immigration order.
This despite:
1. The Federalist Society is a debating society that does not take positions; 2. The panel originally included Jonathan Turley (who had to drop out), whose criticism of the Obama presidency are well-known; 3. the Federalist Society runs an Executive Branch Review Project which runs numerous programs and studies on the constitutional and legal limits of executive authority.
It’s a sign of the desperation of President Obama’s defenders that they seek to mischaracterize open debates as signs of support for the unconstitutional order.
Published in General
If we had a real media this action never would’ve been a possibility. Instead we have an immune system that isn’t working in this country. They are actively aiding and abetting the disease and its destruction and ravages of the host body.
I think I am in shock. I did not think I would live to see the day that John Yoo found anything a President did as unconstitutional.
You have not been reading carefully. John’s position is that the President as Commander-in-Chief has wide discretion in foreign affairs and that, on the domestic side, he is obliged to faithfully execute the laws. There is, he believes, a sphere of discretion and one in which he is bound.
I am not sure that I agree with him entirely with regard to executive discretion in foreign affairs, but it is clear that considerable discretion is required if the nation is to be defended and our interests are to be looked after.
Obama defends what he is doing as an act of prosecutorial discretion, and prosecutors do have to pick and choose the cases that they bring to court. But what they cannot do is dispense with the law entirely — which is what the President is doing.
I am concerned about the widespread (on the right) focus on process over substance here. Yeah, so, Obama is deferring deportation. Big deal. Presidents of both parties have been refusing to deport illegals for decades. I don’t mean Executive Orders. I mean they just don’t do it. All that Obama has done is state publicly that he is doing what he was already doing. Is this the state of affairs we have come to? So long as the President lies and pretends he is enforcing the law everything is okay, but if he tells the truth about doing what he was already doing it becomes a Constitutional crises?
To the extent that the President is issuing social security numbers, green cards, and work permits to people who are forbidden by law from working in the U.S. (and employers are forbidden by law from hiring them), then yes – the President is flagrantly violating the law. But that is not going to be a selling point politically, if people agree with the policy. The takeaway must not be that the President cut corners to do the right thing.
We need to explain why the decision itself was wrong, not just attack the process. We need to drive home the fact that rewarding illegal immigration depresses wages, increases unemployment, costs billions in government benefits and services, produces virtually nothing in tax revenues, and encourages further lawlessness. We need to drive home that it is not a “punishment” to live in Mexico (or other countries from where these illegals originate), and that sending a Mexican citizen back to Mexico is not “uncompassionate.” We need to win the argument on the substance. Arguing about process is a political cul de sac.
No, I have read Mr Yoo writings for quite a while and have a pretty good handle on his the Commander-in-Chief reigns supreme on foreign affairs philosophy. I also respect his lawyer ways of twisting words, definitions and concepts to fit his narratives. He is quick and nimble of mind, a true master of his craft, as Jon Stewart found out to his own detriment.
So I am completely shocked that on an issue the involves foreign nationals in the country illegally. Whose mere presence of has obvious national security considerations and whose mass deportation of would have serious diplomatic repercussions. That Mr Yoo’s position would not be that the Presidential whim would not reign supreme, is a position I would not have thought possible of him.
The professor is wrong when he says in the thirty-ninth minute that the only thing new about the administration’s position on immigration is the numbers.
There is the matter of encouragement.
Thanks very much for this, Professor Yoo. Excellent discussion, as always from the Federalist Society.
There is more than a trivial possibility that Mr. Obama does not want this Congress to pass any immigration reform so he has poisoned that well with his recent pronouncements. As a result, immigration reform will be a big issue in the 2016 elections.
Larry, I don’t agree with much of your post, except the generality that the strength of the constitutional case against Obama’s action can be exaggerated. I would also point out that Obama will be issuing Social Security numbers and work permits (not sure about green cards) based on his order. I believe that’s where he’s stepping over the line from prosecutorial discretion to law-making. It’s one thing to publicly announce that certain lawbreakers will not be pursued. It’s another to give those law breakers some sort of protected legal status that is not otherwise conferred upon them by law. And, for me, this is where the legal question gets hazy and complex. What statutory authority do the president and his agents have to issue Social Security numbers, work permits, etc. in the absence of specific Congressional action allowing them to do so? That is a question for which I don’t have answer. (Caveat: I’ve not viewed the Fed Soc video above).