- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,566
- 2,493
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It has been to my dismay to repeatedly read a lot of misinformation, by conservatives at this website, regarding Obama's recent immigration EO. I have read false characterizations of amnesty and de facto amnesty. Anyone familiar with the facts and the seemingly arcane law in this area will quickly come to the realization Obama's recent immigration EO isn't amnesty or de factor amnesty.
This isn't to suggest President Obama's recent immigration EO was lawful, or if lawful then a prudent exercise of his lawful discretion. However, conservatives do themselves no favors in mischaracterizing Obama's immigration EO as amnesty or de factor amnesty, other than to make themselves look like uninformed on the issue. So in an effort to, well, have conservatives avoid using words and terms inapplicable to Obama's immigration EO I have included a link below which is very educational in regards to Obama's recent immigration EO.
Take some time to read it.
Eight Observations About OLC Memo on Constitutionality of Executive Action on Immigration | Josh Blackman's Blog
The link below explores the limits of executive branch prosecutorial discretion.
The Constitutional Limits of Prosecutorial Discretion | Josh Blackman's Blog
Josh Blackman on the OLC Memo and the Constitutional Limits of Prosecutorial Discretion Michael Ramsey - The Originalism Blog
I included the (3rd) last link, which has some information about the Federalist Society and the forum it held regarding the legality of the executive branch's invocation of prosecutorial discretion to justify the EO in the area of immigration. For those who do not know, the Fedealist Society is a conservative/libertarian organization, I was a member for all 3 years in law school.
Here is a very illuminating conclusion reached by the Federalist Society forum regarding Obama's use of EO in the area of immigration.
This isn't to suggest President Obama's recent immigration EO was lawful, or if lawful then a prudent exercise of his lawful discretion. However, conservatives do themselves no favors in mischaracterizing Obama's immigration EO as amnesty or de factor amnesty, other than to make themselves look like uninformed on the issue. So in an effort to, well, have conservatives avoid using words and terms inapplicable to Obama's immigration EO I have included a link below which is very educational in regards to Obama's recent immigration EO.
Take some time to read it.
Eight Observations About OLC Memo on Constitutionality of Executive Action on Immigration | Josh Blackman's Blog
The link below explores the limits of executive branch prosecutorial discretion.
The Constitutional Limits of Prosecutorial Discretion | Josh Blackman's Blog
Josh Blackman on the OLC Memo and the Constitutional Limits of Prosecutorial Discretion Michael Ramsey - The Originalism Blog
I included the (3rd) last link, which has some information about the Federalist Society and the forum it held regarding the legality of the executive branch's invocation of prosecutorial discretion to justify the EO in the area of immigration. For those who do not know, the Fedealist Society is a conservative/libertarian organization, I was a member for all 3 years in law school.
Here is a very illuminating conclusion reached by the Federalist Society forum regarding Obama's use of EO in the area of immigration.
Last week at the Federalist Society convention, a panel was held on the Presidents duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed with John Baker, Ron Cass, John Eastman, Chris Schroeder, Neal Devins, and moderated by Judge Griffith (CADC). Most of the discussion focused on the Presidents ability to defer prosecutions of deportations. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post (who was sitting next to me by the only table in the Mayflower with a power outlet) reported Legal Panel At Federalist Society Begrudgingly Accepts Obamas Immigration Powers.
This headline irked many members of the Federalist Society, but Sam accurately reported the event.
The talk was, well, lawyerly. Every conclusion seemed to have a qualification attached to it. But, by and large, the panelists agreed the president has wide legal latitude to prioritize and shape deportation laws, as regrettable for Republicans or the long-term balance of powers that may be.
My good friend John Baker made a very important point, which inspired an Op-Ed I wrote in todays Los Angeles Times.
If Congress wants to restrain the discretion of the president, they are supposed to do what the separation of powers encourages them to do: Write the statute tightly so that it will be actually administered the way you want it administered, Baker said. The reality is many members of Congress dont care how it is administered until somebody squawks about it. They dont read the statutes, so how do they know how it is going to be administered.
As usual, John is exactly right on the structure of our Constitution. Throughout the 20th Century, Congress has shirked its duty to legislate and appropriate to maintain the separation of powers.
RELATED: At Balkinization, Adam Cox and Cristina Rodriguez: Executive Discretion and Congressional Priorities. Here is an excerpt:
... n the debate leading up to the Presidents announcement of administrative immigration relief, most commentators acknowledged that his prosecutorial discretion was not unlimitedthat somewhere a line would be crossed from permissible effectuation of enforcement priorities and to an unconstitutional failure to enforce the law. Yet most commentatorsespecially proponents of the President using his discretion to provide relief to broad categories of unauthorized immigrantshave been reluctant to specify where that line might be. We think this is because the line cannot be drawn with precision using conventional legal analysis. Last night the debate changed with the OLC opinions decision to draw a sharp line.
The OLC opinion is a fascinating and important legal document, and in our view it reflects a novel conception of the Presidents enforcement authority. The memo ties the Presidents use of his prosecutorial discretion directly to congressional priorities. Again and again, the memo emphasizes the importance of whether a discretionary decision is consistent with . . . the priorities established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Where the decision to grant relief tracks priorities reflected in the statute, such as keeping intact the families of citizens and lawful permanent residents, it falls within the zone of discretion. But where the relief cannot be linked to statutory provisions, the executive is constrained. This is the reason OLC concluded that providing relief to the parents of DACA recipients would not be lawful.
This headline irked many members of the Federalist Society, but Sam accurately reported the event.
The talk was, well, lawyerly. Every conclusion seemed to have a qualification attached to it. But, by and large, the panelists agreed the president has wide legal latitude to prioritize and shape deportation laws, as regrettable for Republicans or the long-term balance of powers that may be.
My good friend John Baker made a very important point, which inspired an Op-Ed I wrote in todays Los Angeles Times.
If Congress wants to restrain the discretion of the president, they are supposed to do what the separation of powers encourages them to do: Write the statute tightly so that it will be actually administered the way you want it administered, Baker said. The reality is many members of Congress dont care how it is administered until somebody squawks about it. They dont read the statutes, so how do they know how it is going to be administered.
As usual, John is exactly right on the structure of our Constitution. Throughout the 20th Century, Congress has shirked its duty to legislate and appropriate to maintain the separation of powers.
RELATED: At Balkinization, Adam Cox and Cristina Rodriguez: Executive Discretion and Congressional Priorities. Here is an excerpt:
... n the debate leading up to the Presidents announcement of administrative immigration relief, most commentators acknowledged that his prosecutorial discretion was not unlimitedthat somewhere a line would be crossed from permissible effectuation of enforcement priorities and to an unconstitutional failure to enforce the law. Yet most commentatorsespecially proponents of the President using his discretion to provide relief to broad categories of unauthorized immigrantshave been reluctant to specify where that line might be. We think this is because the line cannot be drawn with precision using conventional legal analysis. Last night the debate changed with the OLC opinions decision to draw a sharp line.
The OLC opinion is a fascinating and important legal document, and in our view it reflects a novel conception of the Presidents enforcement authority. The memo ties the Presidents use of his prosecutorial discretion directly to congressional priorities. Again and again, the memo emphasizes the importance of whether a discretionary decision is consistent with . . . the priorities established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Where the decision to grant relief tracks priorities reflected in the statute, such as keeping intact the families of citizens and lawful permanent residents, it falls within the zone of discretion. But where the relief cannot be linked to statutory provisions, the executive is constrained. This is the reason OLC concluded that providing relief to the parents of DACA recipients would not be lawful.
