• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Is it legal for the President to assume legislative power?


  • Total voters
    23
The Emancipation Proclamation was a war tactic. While it isn't the best source, it is accurate in this case: Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It certainly did spark a war, and was justified by the president as CIC, but it was an executive order. The thirteenth amendment was not ratified until after the civil war, and it seems highly unlikely it could have been passed until afterward. So, the proclamation is an example of an executive order that changed the history of the United States rather dramatically.
 
It is legal. But I agree the office of POTUS has way too much power and I am all in favor of stripping much of that power.
 
It certainly did spark a war, and was justified by the president as CIC, but it was an executive order. The thirteenth amendment was not ratified until after the civil war, and it seems highly unlikely it could have been passed until afterward. So, the proclamation is an example of an executive order that changed the history of the United States rather dramatically.

The Emancipation Proclamation was declared during the war, it did not cause it. Are you really unclear on that point? Yes, it was an executive order and one justified by Lincoln's powers as Commander-in-Chief. It did not apply to the North or even the 4 border states, just those under rebellion. Did it prompt action, probably, I never denied that. Of course the original topic is whether the President can assume legislative power which the Emancipation was not an assumption of legislative power.
 
The Emancipation Proclamation was declared during the war, it did not cause it. Are you really unclear on that point? Yes, it was an executive order and one justified by Lincoln's powers as Commander-in-Chief. It did not apply to the North or even the 4 border states, just those under rebellion. Did it prompt action, probably, I never denied that. Of course the original topic is whether the President can assume legislative power which the Emancipation was not an assumption of legislative power.
Declaring that the slaves were now free was not an assumption of legislative power?

And, if Obama should declare the illegals to now be legal, would that be an assumption of legislative power?
 
No, the argument boils down to executive orders are potentially illegal when they are incompatabile with the express or implied will of the Congress. Have an issue with that take it up with the SCOTUS Justice that wrote it, not me. Smarmy little winky faces don't invalidate the SCOTUS's opinion on the matter.

.

The entire premise of the thread is based on pure conjecture. We don't know whether the Executive Order will be in conflict with existing federal law because it hasn't been issued yet. Its quite possible that he issues an executive order that pertains to nothing more than immigration enforcement which is entirely under the purview of the executive branch anyway.

For an executive order to be unconstitutional, it has to be in conflict with existing federal law. For example, if a president issued an executive order making changes to Medicare reimbursement forms for providers or to increase regulatory oversight of Medicare Advantage providers, then it would most likely not be in conflict with existing federal law and thus not unconstitutional.

However, if a president were to issue an executive order instructing Medicare Part D to start using its purchasing power to negotiate lower prices from drug companies, that would be clearly in conflict with existing federal law. Thus it would unconstitutional and would successfully challenged in the courts.

To start a thread that gives some hypothetical example of an executive order that hasn't even been issued and then predict it could lead to future executive orders of some future administration is useless conjecture.
 
Last edited:
And, if Lincoln had waited for Congress to act, our history could have been quite different don't you think?

Not by very much.

The Emancipation Proclamation was illegal. Until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, the federal government had no legitimate authority with regard to slavery.

But the Thirteenth Amendment was eventually ratified, legitimately putting into effect the policy that was illegally enacted via the Emancipation Proclamation.

All that Lincoln really accomplished via his illegal executive order was to change the timing slightly by which slavery was ended; and more significantly, to establish a precedent that weakened the rule of Constitutional law.
 
The entire premise of the thread is based on pure conjecture. We don't know whether the Executive Order will be in conflict with existing federal law because it hasn't been issued yet. Its quite possible that he issues an executive order that pertains to nothing more than immigration enforcement which is entirely under the purview of the executive branch anyway.

I agree completely here. All that has zero to do with how many executive orders he's issued.

For an executive order to be unconstitutional, it has to be in conflict with existing federal law.

Not necessarily. Please go back and bother to read my other posts if you'd like to discuss, because repeating things over and over again is just kind of useless. An EO may be unconstitutional if it falls outside of the scope of what the Government is federally allowed to do, if it is in conflict with existing federal law, or if it's an action that is in conflict with the expressed or implied will of Congress (which something not conflicting with current law, but also not explicitely allowed for under current law, could fall under).

To start a thread that gives some hypothetical example of an executive order that hasn't even been issued and then predict it could lead to future executive orders of some future administration is useless conjecture.

Sure it is, and it's entirely reasonable to argue such a thing, which is why it was so curious that you instead trotted out your same old tired strawman to focus on instead.
 
Declaring that the slaves were now free was not an assumption of legislative power?

And, if Obama should declare the illegals to now be legal, would that be an assumption of legislative power?

Yes.
Yes.

Lincoln justified and restricted his actions to just those areas under rebellion as a means of weakening those under rebellion and outside the scope of the Supremacy clause at the time.

I don't see any rebellion in California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas.

Are you only interested in the results of the actions or can you follow along with the circumstances of those actions?
 
If the executive has no duty to enforce the laws and can even change them then what difference does it make when congress passes a law? Are laws now mere options that the executive can enforce/ignore if they so choose while inventing alternative laws and enforcing those instead?

The judiciary can only say (interpret) what the law is and yet still must rely on the executive to abide their wishes. The path is clear when the executive refuses to uphold the law - impeachment by the legislature.

true, he can also be taken to court by Citizens.
 
Not by very much.

The Emancipation Proclamation was illegal. Until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, the federal government had no legitimate authority with regard to slavery.

But the Thirteenth Amendment was eventually ratified, legitimately putting into effect the policy that was illegally enacted via the Emancipation Proclamation.

All that Lincoln really accomplished via his illegal executive order was to change the timing slightly by which slavery was ended; and more significantly, to establish a precedent that weakened the rule of Constitutional law.

Except that the Thirteenth Amendment did not pass until after the civil war, and that the government acted as if the Emancipation Proclamation were the law of the land.

Without the civil war, there is no way the thirteenth amendment would have been ratified.
 
Not by very much.

The Emancipation Proclamation was illegal. Until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, the federal government had no legitimate authority with regard to slavery.

But the Thirteenth Amendment was eventually ratified, legitimately putting into effect the policy that was illegally enacted via the Emancipation Proclamation.

All that Lincoln really accomplished via his illegal executive order was to change the timing slightly by which slavery was ended; and more significantly, to establish a precedent that weakened the rule of Constitutional law.

As the EP only applied to areas in rebellion, it was not illegal. Perhaps the forever part, but certainly not the ability to implement it. It was a very smart legal move.
 
The fact that executive orders are commonly used in very much the same fashion as a king would command his country is more than enough reason to do away with them once and for all.

If that were accurate I would agree. However, Executive Orders only have the power of law over the Executive Branch of government. It is the President establishing policy for the people who fall under him.
 
An absurd example. He is talking of directing INS to focus more on gangs and felons being deported first. He is not enacting legislation sui sponte. It is no different than your local police deciding to focus resources on bad neighborhoods.

A) no, this is "prosecutorial discretion", which the President has already enacted and
B) we have since found out that this is not terribly accurate
 
Back
Top Bottom