• 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

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,485
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Regardless of the politics, is it legal for the POTUS to simply assume the ability to pass Legislation, rather than Veto / Enact it? Does our system of checks and balance of powers really grant the President the authority to do as he wishes and dare Congress to stop him?



For those of you who are tempted to vote "yes" because you A) agree with the policy and B) think that it's a situation that needs to be fixed in a timely manner, I want you to imagine President Scott Walker (or fill in any Republican, really) making the exact same argument, but instead of Immigration Reform, it's about Entitlement Reform.


"Our Entitlements are in danger. People are in danger. That's why I've decided through Executive Action to enact Paul Ryan's Medicare Reforms and privatize Social Security. Now, if the Congress can get me a bill that I can sign​
[ie: that I agree with], then obviously that bill will take precedence. But until then, we've got to act.



etc. Remember, everything this guy does is setting a precedent.
 
Regardless of the politics, is it legal for the POTUS to simply assume the ability to pass Legislation, rather than Veto / Enact it? Does our system of checks and balance of powers really grant the President the authority to do as he wishes and dare Congress to stop him?



For those of you who are tempted to vote "yes" because you A) agree with the policy and B) think that it's a situation that needs to be fixed in a timely manner, I want you to imagine President Scott Walker (or fill in any Republican, really) making the exact same argument, but instead of Immigration Reform, it's about Entitlement Reform.


"Our Entitlements are in danger. People are in danger. That's why I've decided through Executive Action to enact Paul Ryan's Medicare Reforms and privatize Social Security. Now, if the Congress can get me a bill that I can sign​
[ie: that I agree with], then obviously that bill will take precedence. But until then, we've got to act.



etc. Remember, everything this guy does is setting a precedent.

Perhaps a better example is the "war on drugs"; could the POTUS, via EO, simply say that the federal gov't will no longer enforce narcotics trafficking laws and give street drug dealers a "path to legitimacy"? Could the DOJ aggressively pursue any state that dared to interfere with that federal authority? Could the POTUS use an EO to defund those states that do not behave as directed?
 
Regardless of the politics, is it legal for the POTUS to simply assume the ability to pass Legislation, rather than Veto / Enact it? Does our system of checks and balance of powers really grant the President the authority to do as he wishes and dare Congress to stop him?



For those of you who are tempted to vote "yes" because you A) agree with the policy and B) think that it's a situation that needs to be fixed in a timely manner, I want you to imagine President Scott Walker (or fill in any Republican, really) making the exact same argument, but instead of Immigration Reform, it's about Entitlement Reform.


"Our Entitlements are in danger. People are in danger. That's why I've decided through Executive Action to enact Paul Ryan's Medicare Reforms and privatize Social Security. Now, if the Congress can get me a bill that I can sign​
[ie: that I agree with], then obviously that bill will take precedence. But until then, we've got to act.



etc. Remember, everything this guy does is setting a precedent.


If it is legal, we need a new law.
 
For the record: I am a pro-immigration (and, yes, "pro-amnesty") "extremist". I happen to believe that the USA is/supposed to be an entity different from the nation-states of the Old World, by design and by spirit. Living and working in America cannot be a crime, whether you have a stamped affidavit-of-whatever in your pocket or not. (That doesn't make me "left" or even "left-leaning" in the least, by the way - quite the opposite, if you think about it).

Now, answering the question: NO. The Executive has no right "enacting" non-existent laws over the head of the Legislative. Period. If we allow this, all the "teeming masses" aspiring for a better future for their children got a Wrong Address.
 
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:

executive%20orders_chart.jpg
 
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:

executive%20orders_chart.jpg

Thats not the argument though, its whether specific orders are legal. The method in which the President executes his executive power is not in question.
 
Lumping all "executive orders" - regardless of their relationship to existing legislation - together makes very little sense.
But doesn't the FDR's highest score tell you something about the nature of dangers involved? If you are an American-Japanese, it sure does....
 
The point is he is not the "imperial president" he is made out to be. Hell I think he has been a impotent president for much of his presidency. Whether or not any executive orders he issues regarding immigration are legal or not is a question for the federal judiciary.
 
Thats not the argument though, its whether specific orders are legal. The method in which the President executes his executive power is not in question.

Read the OP its a general question and made the comparison between an executive order on immigration and a hypothetical one on entitlement reform. Then argued it was some kind of president. Its hardly a president when you are doing something at a lower rate than any other president since Grover Cleveland.
 
The point is he is not the "imperial president" he is made out to be. Hell I think he has been a impotent president for much of his presidency. Whether or not any executive orders he issues regarding immigration are legal or not is a question for the federal judiciary.

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.
 
Read the OP its a general question and made the comparison between an executive order on immigration and a hypothetical one on entitlement reform. Then argued it was some kind of president. Its hardly a president when you are doing something at a lower rate than any other president since Grover Cleveland.

I look at it his way: Joe committed five wrongs all by drinking and driving, while Fred committed only one wrong by killing his neighbor - who is the biggest wrongdoer Joe or Fred?
 
The point is he is not the "imperial president" he is made out to be. Hell I think he has been a impotent president for much of his presidency. Whether or not any executive orders he issues regarding immigration are legal or not is a question for the federal judiciary.
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?
 
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?

I think its more nuanced. I think the executive should enforce the laws passed by congress. However, I also think that executive orders are a necessary component of a functioning government. I also think that being Obama has issued them at a lower rate than any other president in over a century, that all the complaining about his use of them is just partisan bitching.
 
I think its more nuanced. I think the executive should enforce the laws passed by congress. However, I also think that executive orders are a necessary component of a functioning government. I also think that being Obama has issued them at a lower rate than any other president in over a century, that all the complaining about his use of them is just partisan bitching.
As was pointed out earlier, it isn't the number that are issued, but the content. If the next president issues but one executive order in his term--the internment of all dissidents without trial--will that be OK since he only used the power once as opposed to the hundred of times it was used by his predecessors?
 
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the question of whether executive orders are "legal" is absurd.

No one has suggested that they are not. But utilizing "executive orders" to create or alter legislation is illegal. What you have presented here is what is known as a "straw man argument".

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:

You are conflating unlike things - all EO's are not the same. As an example, if you were to issue twenty EO's dictating the color of ink that shall be used on various forms within the Bureaucracy, and I were to issue a single EO authorizing any employee of the government to arrest any U.S. citizen and hold them indefinitely without charge, I would be the one abusing Executive Order power, not you.
 
Other, Not Legal.

Regardless of how important an issue may seem or be to someone, breaking the system is always a bad way to do it. The constitution innumerates the different powers which shall be exercised by the different branches of government because the is meant to be checks and balances. For the executive to "borrow" a power from the legislative is breaking those checks and balances, therefore illegal.

There is also the problem of precedent. If Obama is allowed to do it again, then it further sets a precedent for any future office holder to do the same on issues they desire to see changed but that have been stalled or are unacceptable to congress made up of a majority from the opposing party. When the dems, for the sake of votes or the popularity of an issue continue to allow Obama to "borrow" their powers and deny the checks and balances of the constitution, by precedent, they have not allow those powers to be borrowed but have, in fact, surrendered them.

While Obama may feel it is necessary to do so on the immigration issue and other issues, it can never be justified under the constitution and destroys the very nature and fabric of the Constitution.

Further, by allowing it, precedent is set and any future executive will then exercise it. Today, a dem is in the white house and wants amnesty for illegals, unearned healthcare and benefits and the freedom to murder unborn children. In 2017, someone else will take over that office. What then will the Dems say if the holder of the office then decides it is ok and important to use the precedent started by Obama to bypass a dem congress on Taxes, Welfare, Environmental nonsense, etc?
 
No one has suggested that they are not. But utilizing "executive orders" to create or alter legislation is illegal. What you have presented here is what is known as a "straw man argument".

And since only two EO's have been overturned because they created or altered legislation, what you have created with this thread is a red herring and probably also a leading question
 
The point is he is not the "imperial president" he is made out to be. Hell I think he has been a impotent president for much of his presidency. Whether or not any executive orders he issues regarding immigration are legal or not is a question for the federal judiciary.

:) And, on this thread, a question for DP members. How did you vote?
 
Regardless of the politics, is it legal for the POTUS to simply assume the ability to pass Legislation, rather than Veto / Enact it? Does our system of checks and balance of powers really grant the President the authority to do as he wishes and dare Congress to stop him?



For those of you who are tempted to vote "yes" because you A) agree with the policy and B) think that it's a situation that needs to be fixed in a timely manner, I want you to imagine President Scott Walker (or fill in any Republican, really) making the exact same argument, but instead of Immigration Reform, it's about Entitlement Reform.


"Our Entitlements are in danger. People are in danger. That's why I've decided through Executive Action to enact Paul Ryan's Medicare Reforms and privatize Social Security. Now, if the Congress can get me a bill that I can sign​
[ie: that I agree with], then obviously that bill will take precedence. But until then, we've got to act.



etc. Remember, everything this guy does is setting a precedent.

Of course it's not legal to bypass the Constitution. The Congress makes the laws, not the president.
Congress, and not the president, also declares war. We've seen the results of the presidency having been given that power of Congress.
Oh, and the Bill of Rights? It's supposed to mean what it says. Bypassing it is not legal, regardless of which party does it and what compelling reason they think they have to do so.

The Constitution, not the voters, not the Congress, certainly not the president, is the supreme law of the land. We ignore that fact at the peril of our liberty.
 
And since only two EO's have been overturned because they created or altered legislation, what you have created with this thread is a red herring and probably also a leading question

yet you aren't willing to vote......
 
I think its more nuanced. I think the executive should enforce the laws passed by congress. However, I also think that executive orders are a necessary component of a functioning government. I also think that being Obama has issued them at a lower rate than any other president in over a century, that all the complaining about his use of them is just partisan bitching.

Alright. And would complaint from you be partisan bitching in the counterfactual where a Republican president unilaterally rewrote our entitlements? If a new (R) POTUS only unilaterally rewrites entitlement legislation, rewrites the tax code, and criminalizes abortion, gosh, that's only three, right?
 
I don't vote in threads with dishonest OP's

The question is simply whether or not the President's planned actions would be legal. You aren't voting to protect yourself :)
 
The question is simply whether or not the President's planned actions would be legal. You aren't voting to protect yourself :)

How does not voting in your poll protect me in any way, and from what?
 
Back
Top Bottom