• 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
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.

Apples and apple seeds. There is nothing wrong with executive orders in general, so the number of which they did is irrelevant. The OPs question was whether a specific order would be constitutional.
 
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.

And again, they arent complaining about executive orders, only CERTAIN ones.
 
How does not voting in your poll protect me in any way, and from what?

It saves you from the cognitive dissonance and making a stand that can be referenced later. Either you have to break from the President, or give up your right to complain when Republican Presidents do the same thing later. :)
 
Not being an ACTUAL constitutional scholar, I still believe the answer is 'no'. The president has access to a discretionary budget but that is provided to him by Congress. Congress must raise funds and authorize spending.
 
It saves you from the cognitive dissonance and making a stand that can be referenced later. Either you have to break from the President, or give up your right to complain when Republican Presidents do the same thing later. :)

Break from the president?

Which one?
 
Break from the president?

Which one?

The current one.

:) I like how you're trying to spin away from the question. It won't work but it's cute how ya'll's only possible strategy is to avoid.
 
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.



Anything that doesn't result in the president being impeached and thrown out of office is legal.
 
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.



Every thing that any president does and gets away with sets 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.
Though as a centrist I'm not able to vote in the poll ..

.. I would definitely say it's not legal.

I find it interesting that, at this moment in time, even those with some degree of left-leaning are saying it's not legal as well, more than there are left-leaners saying it's legal, though that may have something to do with your OP's hitting-home counter example.

Indeed, the SCOTUS has overturned executive orders in the past when one or both of two things were present: 1) it was not clear that the order was supported by U.S. law, and 2) the Congress was strongly opposed to the executive order absent specific congressional legislation. In this specific case, both things are present.

In this case, the awarding of green cards would not be supported by the procedure and protocol of U.S. law as the recipients did not follow the U.S. law-specified procedure to so obtain them.

The President would thus be acting either dictatorially, thumbing his nose at U.S. statutes as well as Congress (as Congress is definitely opposed to this executive order), or, in essence, issuing a pardon of a sort, and pardons are not done through executive orders as they are not the same ( Pardon Power legal definition of Pardon Power ).

I am, however, concerned with what I sense to be a "martyr syndrome" in this President.

He could get himself into serious, serious trouble with such an executive order, and if he thinks he's "saving" these people and this is the last chance he has of doing so and he's "the only one who can save them", he may indeed mount a cross.

Doing so would be, however, really short-sighted, as legalizing roughly 22 to 23 million people (yes, it's not the "11 to 12" million false number so many left-leaners love to minimize) will have a major impact on lowering wage scales across the board, for one thing, to likely a recession (or worse) causing degree.

The uproar this would cause among the great majority of Americans would be significant, not just because of the injustice of it all, but due to the harm such a mistake would inflict on the wallets of so many.

It would be foolish for Obama, both personally and nationally, for him to so martyr himself, taking his country with him.

It makes me think that his allegiance is conflicted, as if his own foreign roots (his father was a transient alien -- not an immigrant -- from Kenya) are causing him some cognitive dissonance in the matter that's clouding his better judgment and compromising his loyalty to the American citizens he's entrusted to protect.

Considering illegal aliens have committed crimes -- trespassing, identity forging, and jobs, living space, roadway space, classroom, and other resource stealing -- crimes all of which harmed American citizens, obviously, that Obama would even think of such an amnesty executive order, and without providing compensation to the American citizens who were wronged by the illegal aliens ..

.. Indicates that he's simply not thinking straight.

In my book, that might be grounds to begin impeachment proceedings, as such an executive order is also most definitely a form of ..

.. Treason.
 
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:

That a simple distraction and change of topic there. Executive Orders issued to deal with Executive departments are not the issue here. Using the EO as a substitute for legislation is.
 
The final cure for lawlessness by high officials is to remove their authority by impeaching and convicting them.

I don't think impeaching President Pinocchio is out of the question. It wouldn't be wise politically now, but that may change, if Mr. Obama decides to abuse his power and insult the Constitution even more than he already has. If the final result is 54 Republican Senators, it still wouldn't be enough to convict and remove an impeached President. The Constitution purposely makes that very hard to do by requiring a two-thirds majority vote, and although Andrew Johnson survived conviction by a single vote, it has never been done yet. Even so, a substantial Republican majority in the Senate tends to make impeachment more likely, by providing greater political cover for a vote in the House to impeach.
 
That a simple distraction and change of topic there. Executive Orders issued to deal with Executive departments are not the issue here. Using the EO as a substitute for legislation is.

Its a semantics argument. The executive order only pertains to departments under the executive branch. In this case Immigration.
 
Its a semantics argument. The executive order only pertains to departments under the executive branch. In this case Immigration.

No, what you are doing is using semantics to distract. Executive orders may not take the place of legislation, that would cross constitutional lines. They are the executive branch's equivalent of senate or house rules. Management.
 
No, what you are doing is using semantics to distract. Executive orders may not take the place of legislation, that would cross constitutional lines. They are the executive branch's equivalent of senate or house rules. Management.

He hasn't issued a broad executive order concerning immigration yet. So this is all hypothetical, if he does, and it goes beyond his constitutional authority, then it will certainly be successfully challenged in the federal courts.

For the record, I am much more sympathetic of the mainstream Republican position on illegal immigration than I am of the Democrats position on it.
 
And again, they arent complaining about executive orders, only CERTAIN ones.

Meaning what? Ones you disagree with? That is absurd. Obama has stated he will only offer orders that are within legal bounds and only the SC can decide whether they will stand. All Presidents push their boundary's and polls show the people are surely in favor of some reform. The Republicans and THEIR threats can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
 
He hasn't issued a broad executive order concerning immigration yet. So this is all hypothetical, if he does, and it goes beyond his constitutional authority, then it will certainly be successfully challenged in the federal courts.

For the record, I am much more sympathetic of the mainstream Republican position on illegal immigration than I am of the Democrats position on it.

Then we have a case of the horse already having left the barn. Certainly you can see the difficulties that result from such a thing. Not to mention, for a POTUS to publically threaten clearly unconstitutional action (clear to all parties) is a problem in and of itself.
 
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.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom