Here are some articles of interest regarding Obama’s immigration speech last night and the legality of Obama’s issuance of executive orders
Forwarded by WM this Media Research Center dispatch
Responding on CNN in the minutes after it ended, Gingrich opined that it was wrong for the President to go against the incoming Congress as it had “repudiated his policies in the election” a few weeks ago. Gingrich then slammed what viewers just heard as “a Gruber speech” where the President was “simply not telling the country the truth.”
Newt goes on to identify some of the policy untruths
Forwarded by DLH, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes:
No, ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’ Does Not Justify Obama’s Lawless Amnesty
McCarthy’s offering should be the prevailing argument accepted by the Supreme Court. But, then, the Court never seems to find anyone who has sufficient “standing” to be heard. And, when they do, they’ll put it at the back of the line and maybe in a couple of years, they’ll make a decision.
Prosecutorial discretion means you are not required to prosecute every crime — which, since doing so would be impossible, is just a nod to reality. It does not mean that those crimes the executive chooses not to enforce are now no longer crimes. Prosecutorial discretion has never meant that the passive act of non-enforcement has the legal effect of repealing criminal laws enacted by Congress. And it has never even been suggested, because to do so would be absurd, that under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, the executive decision not to prosecute certain crimes means the people who commit those crimes should be rewarded for committing them. That, of course, would only encourage others to commit them on a more massive scale.
Also forwarded by DLH this article by Jennifer Rubin a Washington Post featured blogger
Obama’s immigration edict has no legal justification
. . . But who needs Congress when the president declares what is reasonable and comes up with his own bill? (“What I’m describing is accountability—a common-sense, middle-ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported.”) Of course, as president you don’t get to make up rules that change existing law simply because another branch won’t do what you want . . .
Beyond the lame excuses for acting on his own, the plan risks another surge at the border. The reason for doing border security first is to cut off others who would flock seeking the same relief. And the purpose of a slow and demanding path to legalization is both to disincentivize other illegal immigrants and preserve the integrity of a system that determines (or used to determine) who gets into the country and who doesn’t . . .
And Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) made a sound point in his released statement, one of the more impressive of a slew of GOP missives . . .
” prosecutorial discretion does not give authority to grant unprosecuted violators with privileges or benefits such as work permits. Such benefits granted to unprosecuted violators may be in violation of the law.”
It is one thing not to deport it is another thing to award green cards in contravention of federal law.
Regrettably, Rubin, who can develop some sound conservative arguments as displayed above, failed to do so in castigating attendance at an upcoming conservative “summit” sponsored by Iowa Congressman Steve King. Rubin unfairly if not ignorantly goes along with characterizations of King’s position on illegal immigration and the problems on our southern border. Craig Robinson, editor of The Iowa Republican deals with the matter here.
David Limbaugh weighs in
Lawless Amnesty Shows Contempt for Constitution
In attempting to rationalize every one of Obama’s serial outrages, liberal politicians and pundits invariably draw arrows from their bloated moral equivalence quivers. “President Obama is doing nothing other than what Republican presidents have done in the past,” they say. “Why didn’t you conservatives complain then?”
A number of discriminating writers have conclusively put the lie to this specious claim. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush issued executive orders concerning immigration, but their actions were in furtherance of implementing legislation passed by Congress. Obama’s order is in direct contravention of Congress’ express will on the matter . . .
In seeking to justify the unjustifiable, Obama doesn’t just say — dishonestly — Republicans did it first. He makes an even more absurd and equally contemptible argument. He says he really regrets that members of Congress forced his benevolent executive hand on this, for if they had fulfilled their own duty to pass immigration reform legislation, he wouldn’t have been compelled to act. So he’s issuing the unlawful order under duress — with a legislative gun to his head? Seriously?
Tell me why such Orwellian canards don’t disturb rank-and-file Democrats or people in the liberal media who purport to respect the Constitution. Can anyone on the face of the earth point to a single provision in the Constitution that says the principle of separation of powers will be suspended and congressional authority subordinated to that of the president anytime a president, in his sole and absolute discretion, decides such because Congress hasn’t yielded to his legislative demands? . . . .
R Mall
