The Checks have bounced and the Balances are overdrawn
The Supreme Court of the United States is set to rule on whether or not President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued the executive order allowing four million people in this nation illegally to obtain work permits without fear of being deported.
I have believed all along that this executive order was unconstitutional. In our system of checks and balances, Congress passes the laws and the President (and his or her administration) are responsible for enforcing them. If entering the country illegally is a crime, and under current federal law it is, then that law must be enforced.
Justice Anthony Kennedy has already said "“Aliens may be removed” if they entered the country illegally and committed crimes, but a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.... Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.”
He's right, isn't he? Just as the IRS can choose to decide, using the same kind of broad discretion, to excuse taxpayers from paying their taxes. So if President Obama were to issue an executive order that says the IRS will no longer pursue collection of the penalties imposed by Obamacare for failure to comply with the mandate to obtain coverage, the same logic would apply. Right? Or if he were to issue an order that federal employees of his administration were to be exempted from the collection of back taxes, he would be using the same kind of broad discretion to determine which people will be subjected to laws? Could a president then issue an executive order that a certain group of violators of any law can be exempted from facing prosecution, no matter how serious the infraction?
It's not just a slippery slope, it's an avalanche waiting to fall upon the American people. There must be a certain amount of discretion in any system of law enforcement. Prosecutors can choose which charges they can impose based on the probability of their ability to obtain a conviction. But to give an entire group of lawbreakers a complete pass on having that law enforced just makes no sense under normal circumstances.
However, these are not necessarily ordinary circumstances. With the exception of the first two years of President Obama's tenure in the Oval Office, Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives. Now they control both the House and Senate. Our government has become extraordinarily gridlocked by partisan bickering and wrangling. It is as bad or worse than it has ever been.
President Obama himself said during his first term that he couldn't just change immigration law by executive order. Then he went ahead and did it, proving checks and balances aren't working right.
I have believed all along that this executive order was unconstitutional. In our system of checks and balances, Congress passes the laws and the President (and his or her administration) are responsible for enforcing them. If entering the country illegally is a crime, and under current federal law it is, then that law must be enforced.
Justice Anthony Kennedy has already said "“Aliens may be removed” if they entered the country illegally and committed crimes, but a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.... Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.”
He's right, isn't he? Just as the IRS can choose to decide, using the same kind of broad discretion, to excuse taxpayers from paying their taxes. So if President Obama were to issue an executive order that says the IRS will no longer pursue collection of the penalties imposed by Obamacare for failure to comply with the mandate to obtain coverage, the same logic would apply. Right? Or if he were to issue an order that federal employees of his administration were to be exempted from the collection of back taxes, he would be using the same kind of broad discretion to determine which people will be subjected to laws? Could a president then issue an executive order that a certain group of violators of any law can be exempted from facing prosecution, no matter how serious the infraction?
It's not just a slippery slope, it's an avalanche waiting to fall upon the American people. There must be a certain amount of discretion in any system of law enforcement. Prosecutors can choose which charges they can impose based on the probability of their ability to obtain a conviction. But to give an entire group of lawbreakers a complete pass on having that law enforced just makes no sense under normal circumstances.
However, these are not necessarily ordinary circumstances. With the exception of the first two years of President Obama's tenure in the Oval Office, Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives. Now they control both the House and Senate. Our government has become extraordinarily gridlocked by partisan bickering and wrangling. It is as bad or worse than it has ever been.
President Obama himself said during his first term that he couldn't just change immigration law by executive order. Then he went ahead and did it, proving checks and balances aren't working right.
posted by me at 5:03 PM
<< Home