I read that Obama shouldnt be allowed to go around Congress on immigration

[Enrique]

I read it on DU.

A year ago,when Luis Gutierrez claimed that Obama had the power to do exactly what he just did, at least one DUer raised the alarm:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x582988

REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ: Yes. We think the President should immediately take administrative actions. Look, the President of the United States has broad discretionary powers that are conferred upon him by the laws of this nation. We don’t need new laws. It’s nice, and I appreciate the President calling upon the nation to begin to work legislatively to pass the DREAM Act, to pass comprehensive immigration reform. But listen, the one million young men and women who could benefit from the DREAM Act should be given some shelter immediately. The President of the United States should simply respond, affirmatively, to 22 U.S. senators, including those that introduced the DREAM Act yesterday — Senator Durbin and Senator Reid — who asked him three weeks ago to do one thing: stop their deportation. He has the authority under the law to do that. He can’t legalize them. He can’t give them a sense of permanency. But he can give them relief, shelter, set them aside and say, "I’m not going to deport them, I’m not going to take prosecutorial action against them, until the Congress of the United States finally deals with the DREAM Act and votes on it one way or another." That’s the kind of champion, and that’s the kind of affirmative action we would hope from the President of the United States. At a time in which the Republicans are heaping on the immigrant community, where xenophobic tendencies here in the Congress are just at a high, we expect him to respond affirmatively in defending the immigrant community.



Tarheel_Dem (1000+ posts) Thu May-12-11 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Just how far do we want to travel down this road of unilateral executive privelege?

Gutierrez may find himself all alone, howling at the moon pretty soon. What many groups on the left are demanding this president do, depending on the issue, is to skirt Congress. Why is Rep. Gutierrez demanding so much of the White House, while seemingly demanding so little of the chamber to which he was duly elected? Change the fucking laws. No administration should be permitted to blatantly disregard the other two branches of government, just because "his base" thinks a law is unjust.

We have such short memories around here. It wasn't that long ago that we were lambasting the previous administration for governing by executive fiat, and signing statements. Gutierrez should worry more about convincing his colleagues in Congress why the Dream Act is good for America, and stop scapegoating the WH because he can't muster adequate support in his own Chamber.

[creeksneakers2]

1. The executive branch has the power to prosecute

With that, they have the power to not prosecute. So, there's no usurpation there. I don't know about the part where work permits could be granted to persons who are technically in the country illegally. I'd like to hear Obama's reasoning on what gives him the power to do that.

[treestar]

2. I agree, if Bush did it, the board would be enraged

Though with Bush it would be something like not enforcing environmental regulations.

Many times people demand Obama do something as if he has raw power. This is his most blatant use of it. So of course they are not going to praise him for finally having "the balls" to use this power. No, it has to be declaring "victory" over DUers who didn't want Obama to abuse that power the way a Republican would.

[morningfog]

4. You think this is an abuse of power?

[treestar]

6. In a way

What if a Republican refused to enforce an environmental law? We are often accused of saying it's OK if a Democrat does it.

I still like it though, because I think the DREAM act is only basic common decency and the Republicans are horrible for refusing to pass it.

And I don't agree with people who claim the President is wrong for enforcing immigration laws. I've seen threads here accusing him of not having "balls" and here he has them - even giving work permits to illegals rather than deporting them. So instead of getting credit for that from those people, I can bet they will now just crow over those DUers who defended him for enforcing the laws or not using his power on the edge.

[morningfog]

7. Repubs have refused to enforce environmental laws. The President gets broad discretion in

the implementation of laws. That is the role of the Executive, they execute the laws. How they choose to execute the laws is within their right, until the judicial branch finds they are wrong or have gone to far. Or, if Congress passes new legislation.

The Executive is only as powerful as the other branches allow. It is good for all branches to be zealous in reaching for the limits of their power. It is very dangerous when one branch acquiesces their power. It is usually Congress that slacks on the job the most.

[Igel]

13. The point isn't the extent to which they have power.

The point is the use of the power and reaction to the use.

A (R) president decides to use his power to unevenly enforce laws that apply to a large group in a way that spares one sub-group the consequences of enforcement and there's at the very least suspicion and at the other end of the spectrum outrage. Part of it is explicitly the group that's been spared, but part of it is the inherent bias and the arrogance of a president that thinks he gets to rewrite the law and what "due process" means.

Obama decides to use his power to unevenly enforce laws that apply to a large group in a way that spares one sub-group the consequences of enforcement and there's near adulation. Part of it is explicitly the group that's been spared, but part of it is the inherent manliness and toughness of a president that gets to rewrite the law and what "due process" means.

It is not good for all branches to be as zealous as they can to reach the limits of their power. It makes for continuing Constitutional crises, which makes for instability. It leads, ultimately, to bad law because hard cases usually lead to bad law. It makes for undermining the system as a whole, because in many cases the only "power" that a branch has is the willingness of the other branch to go along with it.

You stand your ground when it's important and serves the end goal of good governance, collaborating most of the time because that's governing. Standing your ground to enlarge your own power isn't good governance. It's a struggle for power and control, and if there's going to be such a struggle and a winner I want it to be Congress and not the branch of government where all authority is invested in one man.

[morningfog]

3. HAhahah. That's awesome. I had lots of arugments about how the DOJ is under

Obama's purview. This is just another example of how the DOJ and DHS are subject to Obama's orders.

This is a most excellent call out!

[Enrique]

11. and then this reaction today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125146211#top

Tarheel_Dem
26. Isn't this something that Democrats would be ecstatic about? I mean this is Democratic Underground,

right? This is just further proof that DU isn't really the "Democratic" haven it once was.

[morningfog]

5. For more examples, add the order to not defend DOMA, and the order to review

all current deportation proceedings he made earlier.

Obama has a lot of power. These are good uses of it.

[GeorgeGist]

8. Congress is a joke.

Move along.

[Autumn]

9. I wish he would do it more often. n/t

[EC]

10. I think he should push every single thing

he can with his executive powers. That is why those powers are given. We have a deadlocked Congress and no other way to alleviate pain and further decay, but by him.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. Congress has had five years to do something. It didn't.

Bush, McCain, and Kennedy tried to get immigration reform passed. It didn't happen, largely because of outraged nativism. I saw a lot of that here, too.

[Igel]

14. "Nothing's being done, people should take what power they have and use it. Let the chips fall."

Something is always better than nothing. That's what I'm hearing.

Arizona SB 1070 was something. It was pushing the limits of their power. It was saying, "Congress hasn't done anything and something must be done. Let's do what we can."

Most people are making a process argument. "Nothing's being done, the process is broken--and so the remaining functioning parts of the process need to be maxed out." This is a foolish argument.

The goal is rooted in a moral argument. We're right, they're wrong. Anything that can be done to achieve our goals is right--even if it means sacrificing other kinds of principles we like to claim we hold to. We're often utilitarian--the ends justify the means.

Only with that kind of argument do you get the bright line between SB 1070 and Obama.

We can claim SB 1070 oversteps the Constitution, which gives immigration to the feds. Specifically, it makes it a matter of law--the Congress--which is to be enforced equitably by the executive. Point one to the process supporters. The only moral argument here is, "Me right, him wrong."

But the law is also to be enforced equitably by the executive. The executive is seldom within his rights to effectively rewrite the law to exclude a group that the law is intended to include. Those included under enforcement are entitled to the same due process as those excluded from enforcement. We like due process. We think, usually, of due process as a greater good.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is an extension of due process. Gay rights are due process. Heck, many think of health insurance as a kind of due process. Here, we say due process is bad--and a lack of due process is good, simply because the process is broken.

A broken process makes abiding by the Constitution optional in this case. For us. But SB1070 still violates, in a way that can never be allowed--for them--the Constitution. And the only argument is moral: We're right, they're wrong.

In a democracy, nativism is like populism. Both are nasty viruses that can undermine the republic and lead to the plague of majoritarianism. Sick is sick, whether it causes a fever or the chills, and neither kind of virus, nor either kind of symptom, should never be confused with an enhanced state of health.

[Enrique]

15. apparently Gutierrez was right

Obama has made this move, and so far at least, only the extreme RWer Allen West agrees with Tarheel_Dem that this represents an abuse of power. And keep in mind, the GOP is not exactly reluctant to accuse Obama of abuse of power.