HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Exercising Prosecutorial ...

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:17 PM

Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Is Different From Issuing An Executive Order



Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Is Different From Issuing An Executive Order

Following the Obama administration's announcement that it will grant certain undocumented immigrants the chance to be exempted from deportation, Fox News claimed President Obama had issued the decision as an executive order, implying he did so to circumvent Congress. In fact, the change is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that is consistent with the current law and has decades of precedent.

-snip-

The Change In Immigration Policy Was An Exercise Of Prosecutorial Discretion

DHS Exercised Prosecutorial Discretion To Allow Young Immigrants To Remain In The U.S. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano authored and signed the memorandum that dictated the new policy changes to immigration enforcement. ...

-snip-

Full article here: http://mediamatters.org/research/201206160002




p.s. Please pass along the article link to anyone that is under the false impression that an Executive Order was issued.


5 replies, 3073 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Is Different From Issuing An Executive Order (Original post)
Tx4obama Jun 2012 OP
pnwmom Jun 2012 #1
freshwest Jun 2012 #2
JayhawkSD Jun 2012 #3
Igel Jun 2012 #4
Tx4obama Jun 2012 #5

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:34 PM

1. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 12:07 AM

2. The use of the term 'Executive Order' is a dog whistle for the baggers and Paulites.

More rattling the cages of the CT people.

Bunch of hopeless dickweeds...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 10:46 AM

3. Where is "prosecutorial discretion" described in the constitution?

 

In the enumeration of the responsibilities of the office of President, Article II, Section 3 says, among other things, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” I don't see anything there about discretion. I also don't see anything there saying "some of the laws" or "the laws with which he agrees."

Being a President is a big job. It requires a man willing to fulfill responsibilities that may be difficult for him. If he is not prepared to do that he should not seek to be President.

In fact, the change is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that is consistent with the current law and has decades of precedent.


No laws, and no precedent can supercede the responsibility placed on the President by the constitutuion. This is the document which defines out nation. If we abandon the constitution we have nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayhawkSD (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 12:46 PM

4. Every case that comes along allows for prosecutorial discretion.

You look and decide to show mercy instead of justice. It happens. It's often a good thing.

Can be a bad thing. The prosecutor looks and decides that the racist who beat up the black kid wasn't doing all that bad a thing, or he has empathy with the bully. Prosecutorial discretion cuts both ways, and was widely implemented in the South even when the laws applied without racial prejudice.

This was deemed a violation of due process. It's a fine line between having a pattern of protecting one class and having mercy on individuals. For this, you can think of illegal immigrants as a kind of class, and the subgroup that Obama's singling out for preferential treatment as a class. Or not. On such niceties the Constitution pivots on such niceties, showing itself a weathervane as society wants or a rudder that a few use to steer society in the "right direction."

I'd note that many of *'s signing statements--the really egregious ones--were the same. "Yes, the law says X, but I don't want to implement X. I'll interpret it to mean Y" or "I'm going to ignore this part of the law." There were howls of derision and outrage, everybody focusing on process when their real argument was morality or politics. (For some these are the same.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 05:10 PM

5. Bump! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread