View Poll Results: Is it legal for the President to assume legislative power?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Right Leaning, Not Legal

    22 68.75%
  • Right Leaning, Legal

    0 0%
  • Left Leaning, Not Legal

    6 18.75%
  • Left Leaning, Legal

    4 12.50%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 89

Thread: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

  1. #51
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    That's something that those on the wrong never properly consider. When they cheer on a corrupt wrong-wing government official claiming unprecedented and unconstitutional power to implement wrong-wing policies,
    what will happen later on, when that position is occupied by a right-wing official, who might now avail himself of those precedents to implement right-wing policies?


    If what they do is legal they might get away with it.

    If it isn't legal they might get impeached and thrown out of office.

    Let's wait and see what happens.

  2. #52
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,010

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    It might not be law, but it sets up how things get done.
    But it can be reversed at any time.

  3. #53
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,010

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Its a semantics argument. The executive order only pertains to departments under the executive branch. In this case Immigration.
    Its not semantics at all. Everyone knows what a EO is. Its how its used thats the problem.

  4. #54
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,080

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Anything that doesn't result in the president being impeached and thrown out of office is legal.
    no. Impeachment is a political move. The law does not cease to exist for the President simply because he is elected President.

  5. #55
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Regardless of the politics, is it legal for the POTUS to simply assume the ability to pass Legislation, rather than Veto / Enact it?
    In a general sense, no. Indeed, it's not POSSIBLE for the POTUS to pass legislation. Like, phyiscally impossible. The question makes no sense.

    Now, if you're asking is it legal for the POTUS to take executive action that essentially mimics legislation being proposed in the congress or that essentially directs Executive administrations to disregard laws by the congress, then the question is a big resounding "It depends".

    SCOTUS Justice Robert Jackson is the person credited with laying the foundation for the legality of executive orders, noting there are three types that exist. Specifically, one type that is likely legal, one type that is likely illegal, and one type that is rather borderline.

    It is clearly legal when persuant to an expressed or implied authorization by congress. It's likely illegal when the actions are incompatable wit hthe express or implied will of hte Congress. Then there is what's known as a "zone of twilight" where the President is acting on something Congress has seemingly not spoken on either way.

    So taking something like drug reform, that another poster threw out there...

    If it seemed that in a general sense the Congress was likely going to be taking some action on drug reform and it's reasonable to believe it will occur, it just depends how long the debate and process may take, the President would likely have significant latitude to take executive orders as it relates to drug reform that is in line with what seems likely to pass congress while he waits for an actual bill.

    If it seemed that in a general sense the Congress was unlikely to be taking certain action on drug reform and it's reasonable to believe it won't occur or occur anytime in the relatively near future, then the President likely has very little legal latitude to take use an executive order as it relates to drug reform that is in line with the what seems likely to fail to pass congress.

    If congress simply wasn't dealing with drug reform and it doesn't seem to be on their radar anytime soon but the President felt some kind of loosening action was needed, then he'd likely have a legitimate argument for taking action with an Executive Order in a legal fashion. However, it would depend on the extent of what he did and whether or not Congress then decides to take up the issue.

  6. #56
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the question of whether executive orders are "legal" is absurd. Of course they are. Moreover, Obama is hardly unprecedented in his use of them, or even gratuitous in his use of them. In fact he has been fairly restrained in his use of them considering the financial crisis and deep recession he took office in the midst of. Point being the "president" was set long ago:
    No, i'ts not absurd. It's so not absurd that it's a matter the Supreme Court has directly tackled before and acknowledged that executive orders can fail to be legal. Additionally, your continual focusing on a single notion of them...the AMOUNT that is passed...is pidgeon holing the argument and strawmanning people by simply painting the argument as singularly about the amount.

    As I've already staetd to you before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    SD, you're a smart guy so I don't know why you keep going to this ONE factor when it's been pointed out to you numerous times that peoples complaints are generally beyond simple "how many".

    If people were claiming specifically that Obama is doing too many EO's or suggestnig EO's inherently are beyond a Presidents authority, then you'd be correct in posting this link. However, that's not what people are claiming...but you're just attacking a strawman of your own creation by acting like their focus is on one thing.

    If I say a player is making poor decisions shooting the ball and he turns raound and goes "But coach! I only shot the ball 8 times and Johnson over there shot it 12! How dare you criticize me" that doesn't necessarily counter my point. Johnson's shots may've been high percentage while the other players wasn't. Johnson's may've been uncontested while the other players were while being double teamed. Johnson's may've been on set plays after ball movement, where as the other players were from him hogging the ball and putting up a shot.

    There could be all sorts of factors as to why I say he was making a poor decision shooting; but he just throws out one metric and declares a win.

    Unless you can show me an instance of the poster complaining about poor volume, this instance...as with previous instances where you've been called out about htis...is just you attempting to pidgeon hole an argument.

    A large part of the argument regarding Obama and executive actions is not the volume, but the type of actions being under gone. Additionally, the issue is not even singularly resolving around "Executive orders" but a mass of executive action undertaken...both through EO's and directives via Executive Administrations.

    When it comes to EO's, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson laid the foundation for the three types that exist.

    Those issued persuant to an expressed or implied authorization of Congress. In these cases the POTUS's authority is maximum, with an EO being invalid only if what it does is outside the scope of the governments power.

    The next are those with a "Zone of Twilight"; instances where a President acts singularly based on his independent power and Congress has not spoken on the issue. Here, the validity of the EO is a bit more questionable and depends on the imperatives of the event and contemporary imponderables.

    Finally, there are those that are incompatable with the expressed or implied will of Congress. This is the flip side of the first instance and is where the POTUS's authority is at it's lowest. The EO would only be constitutional if it's something a court could disable the congress from being able to act on.

    Justice Jackson pointed out that instances falling in that last category are ones where the notion of checks and balances within our government becomes at stake.

    Focusing singularly upon the "amount" is a dishonest reading of peoples complaints, basically placing blinders on and deciding to argue the path of least resistance rather than take any effort to honestly understand their complaints.

    It is not simply the number but rather the method and style in which it's being done.

    The issues with regards to immigration is a wonderful example of this. Proponents of the President will note that he was simply focusing enforcement towards certain problems and away from others. A legitimate defense. However, also legitimate is the opponents of the President's point that many of the designations that the Obama administration made for determining enforcement closely match a law that was attempted to be passed by congress and failed. As such, you're have an issue of an Executive Order that is incompatable with the expressed will of Congress. It was a course of action specifically dealt with in Congress and was unable to come to pass. That causes a greater question regarding the legitimacy of that executive order beyond one that was done in line with what Congress stated.

    This is why it's foolish when people keep throwing out pure volume numbers as if every executive order or action is equal and the same.

    The changing of implimentation dates within the passage of Obamacare is another legitimate issue. For example, the law laid out SPECIFIC dates that certain factors had to occur. And while they did provide for exemptions, they highlighted that said exemption couldn't come into effect until 2017. When congress clearly includes a specific date, and clearly includes that an exemption can't be done until 2017, it's difficult to argue that expressed OR implied will of the congress was that changing to a date sometime between those two points was perfectly okay. Yet that has not stopped exemption after exemption being issued by the Administration regarding the employee mandate.

    These are the type of issues that people have when talking about his over reach of powers and not simply "how many". Continually posting up the same tired chart of "how many" is a poor debate tactic based upon intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to strawman that does a horrendous job of actually offering up substantitve counter arguments to the claims being made.

    You've had this pointed out to you by others before, and you even aknowledegd it, so why you continue to then fall back to the same tired argument is confusing to me.

  7. #57
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    The question is: what do you think? Do you want the president enforcing all laws passed by congress or only those he wants to enforce?
    What specific US CODE or federal statute written by Congress has the President over-turned by an Executive order?

    What specific US CODE or federal statute written by Congress has the President ordered to ignore via an Executive order?


    What specific US CODE or federal statute written by Congress has the President ordered to violate via an Executive order?
    Last edited by 1750Texan; 11-10-14 at 10:48 AM.


  8. #58
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, i'ts not absurd. It's so not absurd that it's a matter the Supreme Court has directly tackled before and acknowledged that executive orders can fail to be legal. Additionally, your continual focusing on a single notion of them...the AMOUNT that is passed...is pidgeon holing the argument and strawmanning people by simply painting the argument as singularly about the amount.

    As I've already staetd to you before.
    And basically the whole argument boils down to: Executive Orders are unconstitutional when I disagree with them.

    Moreover, many people on here have complained about the number of executive orders and only switched their arguments when it was pointed out that he doesn't issue that many compared to most presidents. Finally, as I have stated before the fact that he came into office in the middle of a global financial crisis and an extremely deep recession yet is still issuing such a historically small number of them is evidence of his restraint in their use. It's not like they are being successfully challenged in the courts either.

    There is a lot to complain about in regards to the failures and policies of the Obama Administration, I just don't see where his use of executive orders is one of them.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Why cant people just follow our pretty lax laws about entering the US?

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Is it LEGAL for POTUS to "borrow" legislative power to pass immigration reform?

    Meh, it's about time we did away with executive orders.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •