Showing posts with label executive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label executive. Show all posts

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Chris Matthews: This Obama mega-amnesty for illegals will be his Emancipation Proclamation

ChrisMatthews:ThisObamamega-amnestyforillegalswill

Chris Matthews: This Obama mega-amnesty for illegals will be his Emancipation Proclamation

posted at 2:41 pm on August 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via RCP and Breitbart, I’m surprised more lefties haven’t already reached for this analogy to snuff objections to Obama’s power grabs. It doesn’t work legally — the Emancipation Proclamation was grounded in Lincoln’s war powers as commander-in-chief whereas Obama’s mega-amnesty would be grounded in … what, exactly? — but most Americans don’t care about constitutional niceties. Matthews is drawing a moral analogy. Lincoln liberated one group that was mired in second-class status, now Obama’s going to liberate another. I’m already looking forward to the artist’s rendering of O with a beard and stovepipe hat on the cover of Time when he finally does it.

Charles Lane sees it coming too:

There is obviously no analogy between slavery and the disadvantages the undocumented face today. Among many other differences, the undocumented arrived voluntarily, searching, often successfully, for a better life. Also, they established residence unlawfully, for which there must be some reckoning…

[But] the issue has this in common with slavery: It’s a long-standing debate over fundamental rights that the nation’s democratic institutions have proven incapable of resolving, leading to increasingly bitter partisan conflict…

There’s just one problem: Our system does not let the president make laws on his own, no matter how good his intentions. Lincoln himself was aware that he needed constitutional authority for the proclamation, invoking, plausibly, his power as commander in chief: Depriving the South of forced labor and making erstwhile slaves potential Union soldiers would help win the war, he argued…

In short, the broadest measure Obama is considering would be constitutionally dubious, politically explosive and flatly contradictory to his own recently expressed views.

Right, but the more you can sell it as an “emancipation,” the more the media will coo and try to bring the public around on it, constitutional warts and all. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been kicking around the idea of O doing all of this as a pardon rather than as “prosecutorial discretion.” The latter is dry and lawyerly, the former is kingly and magnanimous. It’s not quite emancipation — a pardon concedes that the subject has done something wrong — but it’s a grand gesture in the mold of emancipation. I guarantee you that he and his team have at least looked at framing amnesty as a pardon even if they ultimately choose another path.

One thing about Lane’s piece, though: What’s the timetable on deciding when “the nation’s democratic institutions have proven incapable of resolving” an issue? Ezra Klein’s piece for Vox made that assumption too in justifying bold executive action by O. If there’s a pressing policy problem and Congress is irretrievably deadlocked, the theory goes, then the president needs to step in. But … the Senate already passed an immigration bill with bipartisan support, as Obama himself noted during his presser last night. Clearly the Republican leadership in the House favors some sort of comprehensive deal; if Boehner had the guts to bring a bill to the floor, he might well end up with a majority of his own caucus in favor. Once the midterms are over, Republican leaders will begin to tremble at the thought that they haven’t pandered enough to Latino voters before 2016 and will immediately start babbling about comprehensive reform again. The odds of a bill early next year or even during the lame-duck session this year are fair. In which case, how has Congress “proven incapable of resolving” immigration? If you want to fill out this slavery analogy, America didn’t give up on resolving that issue legislatively until states started seceding and war broke out. Fast forward 150 years and the new touchstone of irreconcilable differences is John Boehner hemming and hawing a bit too long over whether to make a deal with Harry Reid. It’s bonkers.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Shock admission from Obama: “I’m bound by the Constitution”

ShockadmissionfromObama:“I’mboundbythe

Shock admission from Obama: “I’m bound by the Constitution”

posted at 8:41 pm on August 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Now we know for sure that he doesn’t read Vox.

I don’t know whether to take this as a sign that O’s having second thoughts about a mega-amnesty or if it’s just lip service he’s paying to enumerated powers as he gears up to rewrite America’s immigration law, but the seeds of the counterargument to executive action are right here in the second half of the clip. Immigration, he says, is an issue on which there’s actually quite a lot of bipartisan consensus. The parties’ demands overlap substantially; even many Republican voters like the idea of comprehensive reform. It’s just these darned obstructionist House Republicans who won’t let the bill move forward. If that’s true, though, then the solution is a no-brainer: Let angry voters revolt at the polls in November and toss Boehner and the rest of the GOP caucus out on their ears. If House Republicans aren’t representing the wishes of their constituents on this subject, they’ll be punished for it and then the new Democratic majority can pass the mother of all amnesty bills next year. Obama seems to be suggesting here that if the polls show bipartisan support on an issue, that gives him extra room to act — he’s vindicating the popular will because House Republicans refuse to. Whereas Ezra Klein’s point, as I took it, was that Obama has extra room to act when there isn’t bipartisan support. When the public is divided and that filters up to Congress, deadlocking the two chambers, then Obama needs to step in and make sure all-important action is taken. Those two scenarios, bipartisan popular support and the lack thereof, encompass all possible outcomes when Congress is frozen, and somehow they both lead to executive action. Huh.

Watch to the end and you’ll see Jon Karl ask Obama straight up whether he intends to issue work permits to illegals after he amnestizes them. You can imagine an argument by which the president, through “prosecutorial discretion,” can legally refuse to remove a single illegal immigrant. What the argument is for letting him authorize them to work here too, though, I have no idea. And yet he doesn’t deny that he’s thinking about it.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Instead of granting executive amnesty, couldn’t Obama just pardon illegal immigrants?

Insteadofgrantingexecutiveamnesty,couldn’tObamajust

Instead of granting executive amnesty, couldn’t Obama just pardon illegal immigrants?

posted at 7:21 pm on August 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

A follow-up to my earlier post about what O can and can’t do under Article II. One thing he can do, unambiguously, is pardon people — lots of people if he likes, just as Jimmy Carter pardoned many thousands of draft dodgers after Vietnam. He could also pardon people preemptively, before they’re charged, which is what Gerald Ford did for Richard Nixon. The obvious question, then: If O’s on firm ground constitutionally in using the pardon power, why doesn’t he explicitly frame his upcoming mega-amnesty for illegals as a pardon? Guy Benson and I spent a solid half-hour debating that this afternoon via e-mail and I figured some readers are also wondering. In fact, here’s Guy’s post on the subject, published a few hours ago at Townhall.

One potential obstacle to a pardon is the idea that an illegal’s ongoing presence in the U.S. is a continuing violation. You can pardon him for having been here already, but what about pardoning him again the day after the pardon issues, and the day after that, and so on? I think that’s less of a legal obstacle than a rhetorical one, though. Obama could issue an order declaring his intent to pardon any nonviolent offender served with an order of deportation now or in the future. That would be a cue to immigration officials not to bother trying to remove anyone. Mission accomplished.

A much bigger obstacle, via Gabe Malor, is that the pardon power simply doesn’t apply to immigration offenses. But don’t take his word for it. Here’s a tidbit from the DOJ’s own webpage on pardons:

For over 100 years, the President has relied on the Department of Justice, and particularly the Office of the Pardon Attorney, for assistance in the exercise of the executive clemency power granted to the President by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the President’s clemency power extends only to federal criminal offenses.

Crossing the border illegally isn’t a criminal offense, notes Gabe. It’s a civil offense. The amnesty-friendly wonks at WaPo reluctantly made the same point back in 2011 when the thought of pardoning illegals was raised at the time:

In reality, the president does not possess this authority, as unauthorized presence in the U.S. is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Presidential pardon power only applies to federal crimes, described as “offenses against the United States” in the Constitution. As such, “a pardon can’t make someone a citizen or lawful resident,” explains John Harrison, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “Deportation is not a criminal proceeding, it’s a civil process that removes from the country someone who is not entitled to be here.”

Only Congress can change the terms for granting immigration status or citizenship, whether for all immigrants or a subset of people. And that’s why an immigration overhaul has stalled for so many years.

In normal times that would be enough to take this option off the table, but we don’t live in normal times or else we wouldn’t be gaming out how the president’s planning to unilaterally legalize five million farking people. 2014 is a world away from 2011; the president does all sorts of things nowadays that people used to think only Congress had the power to do. So, depending on how bold Obama’s feeling, he could note that the Constitution grants the president a pardon power for “offenses against the United States.” That’s been interpreted to mean criminal offenses only but I’ll bet if you asked a bunch of Republicans whether illegal border-crossing should qualify in the abstract as an “offense against the United States,” you’d get upwards of 90 percent saying yes. O could say, in announcing a mass pardon, “these people have committed an offense against the United States, but…” and then wait for the GOP to sue him over the fact that he’s trying to grant a pardon for a civil offense, not a criminal one. The politics of that could be dicey for Republicans — they’ll be demagogued as anti-Latino for opposing Obama’s order, naturally — and even if they file suit anyway, Obama would be fine with punting this issue to the Supreme Court. If they uphold precedent and declare that pardons don’t apply for civil offenses, that’s fine. The whole point of this amnesty ballet is to pander to Latino voters and he’ll have succeeded at that no matter what happens in court. If the four Democrats on the Court plus Anthony Kennedy go into the tank and decide that “offenses against the United States” include border-crossing after all, great. O will have set a bold new precedent in expansive executive authority.

One other nice thing for amnesty shills about a pardon for illegals is that it would change their legal status in a way that “prosecutorial discretion” might not. If O exercises his discretion not to have you deported, that doesn’t automatically mean you’re now legal; it just means the feds have better things to do than deport you right now. With a pardon, by contrast, your offense would be expunged. You’d be here in the U.S. and you’d be guilty of no offense; I’m not sure what that would make you technically — a permanent resident? an “unauthorized immigrant at sufferance” or something? — but you might be eligible to work now that you’re not facing any charges. And of course, the politics of issuing a pardon are much better for the White House than issuing “DACA II” or “parole-in-place” or whatever gassy argle-bargle Obama might end up choosing instead. If you’re going to pander to the left and to Latino voters, you might as well stick to a concept that everyone understands rather than some too-cute finessing of immigration law. I’m sure it’s what O would prefer to do — if he could. But ultimately, the precedent on pardons applying only to criminal offenses might be too much for him to gamble on this. He got smacked down 9-0 on recess appointments and he might well get smacked down 9-0 on this one, which would add credence to the GOP’s argument that he’s an executive run amok. Alas, his historic, unprecedented mega-amnesty will probably have to find a more prosaic vehicle. Too bad — if you’re going to drop the bomb, you might as well make it as many megatons as possible.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Yes, the border crisis began after Obama started messing around with executive amnesties

Yes,thebordercrisisbeganafterObamastarted

Yes, the border crisis began after Obama started messing around with executive amnesties

posted at 6:01 pm on August 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Characteristically excellent work by John Sexton in tracing the timeline on when, and why, kids from Central America started streaming north. Democrats are in a weird position on this point. On the one hand, they insist endlessly to American audiences that Obama’s 2012 amnesty for DREAMers (a.k.a. DACA) had nothing to do with drawing illegals here. That’s crackpot nonsense, the sort of stuff you’ll find (gasp) Ted Cruz pushing. On the other hand, the White House is quietly putting the word out in Central America that whatever they’ve heard about the U.S. handing out “permisos” to young illegals lately isn’t true.

So which is it? Is executive amnesty drawing illegal immigrant kids here or isn’t it? Sexton:

[I]n June 2011, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released the so-called Morton memos. The Morton memos were internal ICE memos which spelled out an expansion of “prosecutorial discretion” for certain individuals who might otherwise be facing deportation. This was one of the solutions to bypass Congress which progressive groups had recommended earlier in 2011…

During the summer and fall of 2011 the promise of “prosecutorial discretion” made big waves in immigrant communities. In fact, almost immediately there was concern that disreputable people were spreading false information about what “prosecutorial discretion” would mean. On August 20, 2011, two days after the White House announcement, the American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a warning (in English and Spanish) titled “Consumer Advisory Do Not Be Misled.”…

It’s clear from contemporaneous statements made by individual immigration attorneys that there was significant confusion about what the change meant. For instance, NY immigration attorney Allen Kaye said at the time, “there’s a lot of misinformation about this and many people think there’s a new immigration law, there’s a new amnesty. No, it’s just a policy.”

The buzz about amnesty for kids started in 2011, a full year before DACA, which explains why Rick Perry was seeing an uptick in border crossings by kids before DACA was even issued. Then, as the numbers began to explode this year, Border Patrol agents asked illegals why so many were suddenly deciding to make the journey north. The answer they got from some of them was that they had been told that June 2014 was the deadline for new “permisos” to be issued. Where that date come from is unclear, but it happens to coincide with DHS’s extension of DACA eligibility for kids who are already part of the program. Somehow, whether through deliberate disinformation being circulated by coyotes or through simple misunderstandings of American law amplified by Central American media, it may be that DACA developments are driving the surge of illegals even now, more than two years later.

But don’t take my word for it:

Children coming into the United States are confused about whether they qualify for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to Representative Luis Gutiérrez (D., Calif.), who said that criminal enterprises are enticing children with false promises of a “permiso.”

“I have 15-year-olds in my office today, who came to my office today, and you know what we told them? ‘You don’t qualify for DACA.’ Why? Because they came here four years ago, when they were 11, and they weren’t here by 2007,” Gutiérrez told reporters Friday evening as the House prepared to vote on a border supplemental bill and legislation freezing the DACA program.

The House’s foremost amnesty shill himself believes that DACA has, inadvertently, provided a pretext for smugglers to drum up business in illegal immigration. Which is ironic because, as Sexton explains, Gutierrez himself touted Obama’s first halting step towards prosecutorial discretion in exempting DREAMers from the law in 2011. He helped spread the idea in Spanish-speaking media that kids might be able to stay, and now kids are showing up confused when they’re told they don’t qualify. I don’t know whether to think that was a mistake on his part or, given his views on illegal immigration, something deliberate.

Exit question: If a comparatively modest amnesty like DACA was able to trigger a crisis at the border, what’s Obama’s upcoming mega-amnesty for adult illegals going to do?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Vox: The president becomes more powerful when Congress doesn’t act

Vox:ThepresidentbecomesmorepowerfulwhenCongress

Vox: The president becomes more powerful when Congress doesn’t act

posted at 2:41 pm on August 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

That’s news to me, but if you asked me to guess what Vox’s line would be on O’s ever more ambitious power grabs, this would’ve been it. Ezra Klein:

Just as Congress is too divided to do anything; it’s also too divided to stop the other parts of government from doing something. Congress can’t pass a law solving the immigration crisis but it also can’t pass a law stopping Obama from trying to solve it. It can’t pass a law regulating carbon emissions but it also can’t pass a law stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions. And that’s because big portions of Congress want these actions to be taken; they happen because they enough congressional support to survive.

A point made by skeptics of Obama’s executive actions is that inaction is a congressional choice that needs to be respected. But if Congress is making a choice when it doesn’t pass a bill to do something, it’s also making a choice when it doesn’t pass a bill to stop another branch of government from doing something. Inaction cuts both ways as an expression of congressional will.

Either I’m misreading that or Klein’s replacing the idea of enumerated powers with some sort of congressional right of first refusal on policy. We prefer that Congress handle major legislative changes, he seems to be saying, but if they’re deadlocked along partisan lines then Obama and the Supreme Court have little choice but to step in and handle some of Congress’s business. (How much isn’t clear.) Where this idea comes from, I don’t know. Klein seems to assume that sometimes government simply must, must act, and if the branch responsible for action is frozen for whatever reason, then the others pick up the slack. Maybe you could make that argument in a case of dire emergency — although even then, as we saw with TARP, Congress can heal its rifts pretty quickly — but how does it justify massive executive action on immigration, a policy problem that’s lingered for decades? The point of enumerated powers is to restrain government by narrowly defining what each branch can constitutionally do; the idea that one branch gets to claim the powers of another if the other doesn’t act fast enough, whatever that means, is the opposite of that. Vodkapundit Steven Green summarizes Klein’s argument this way: “[A] good way for Congress to keep the President from getting too powerful is to do what he wants.” Precisely.

In fact, says Leon Wolf, enumerated powers means that the president has less power when Congress doesn’t act, not more:

By way of reminder, under Article 2, the President’s power exists within the domestic sphere to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress. If Congress does not pass a law, the President does not have a law to execute, and therefore his power shrinks, at least under the Constitution.

The Constitution does not envision a regime in which “smart” people like Ezra Klein and Barack Obama decide that a given policy must exist – and then following this decision, Congress gets a ceremonial first bite at the apple of passing a law in accordance with this policy, and if they fail to do so, the President gets to just enact the policy anyway. That is not how the separation of powers works. There is no universe in which it simply must be that an immigration reform proposal makes it to the President’s desk within the calendar year, and if it does not do so, everyone simply accepts that the President has the authority to do what Congress clearly meant to do in the first place.

To be fair to Klein, he doesn’t go so far as to endorse Obama’s executive amnesty, having not seen the actual order yet, and he admits that the precedent being set here could take the country down an antidemocratic road. And yet he’s laying the ideological groundwork for it by arguing this way. For instance, explain this to me:

And there are, of course, real dangers to the president repeatedly stretching his powers. Conservative critics go too far when they pretend that Obama’s actions are unprecedented. President Jimmy Carter, for instance, unilaterally pardoned hundreds of thousands of draft dodgers — an action more extreme than anything Obama is said to be considering. At the same time, there do need to be limits on the president’s ability to win policy fights by selectively enforcing laws.

How is pardoning a few hundred thousand draft dodgers “more extreme” than unilaterally amnestizing five million illegals? You can disagree with what Carter did but the pardon power squarely belongs to the president under Article II. Which clause gives the president the power to formally legalize people who’ve come here without following the procedures set forth under federal law? And another thing: What happens under Klein’s argument if Congress does act but the president himself moves to block it? That is to say, if Republicans retake the Senate this fall and Congress passes a bill formally ending DACA next year, would Klein support Obama vetoing that bill and then turning around and expanding DACA? Because if that’s okay too in the name of taking “necessary” action, with Congress left with no recourse against executive decrees except supermajority veto overrides in both chambers, then we’ve already arrived at the sort of caesarism Ross Douthat was worried about in his NYT column this weekend.

The irony of Klein’s piece is that it inadvertently undermines the left’s best defense to Obama’s mega-amnesty They could argue that if voters don’t like it, they can always express their upset with O and his party at the polls this fall. That’s how democracies are supposed to work, in theory; if the president overreaches, the people will punish him for it. That’s not how constitutional democracies work, where the Constitution itself limits the president’s power whether or not the majority of voters supports expanding it, but framing one’s argument in terms of popular will is always appealing. Klein’s argument tosses that out the window, though. Instead of arguing that we should let the people decide both ends of this issue — if they dislike congressional gridlock, they’ll give the House back to the Democrats or the Senate back to the GOP, and if they dislike what Obama does with executive action in the meantime, they’ll punish Democrats accordingly — he seems to allow no democratic remedy for gridlock. We simply can’t wait for the damned voters to resolve this impasse by electing a Congress capable of forming a consensus on tough policy matters. We need Obama to act, now. But why?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Newt Gingrich: Obama’s upcoming executive order on amnesty will start a civil war in his own party

NewtGingrich:Obama’supcomingexecutiveorderonamnesty

Newt Gingrich: Obama’s upcoming executive order on amnesty will start a civil war in his own party

posted at 8:41 pm on August 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, I want to believe it, I almost believe it — but I don’t really believe it. All the makings of a Democratic clusterfark are there. If O legalizes five million workers, plenty of blue-collar Democrats are bound to put two and two together and wonder what that means for their wages. And plenty of Democratic Senate incumbents in red states, like, oh, let’s say Mark Pryor, are going to panic, knowing what could happen if the backlash among conservatives is as ferocious as everyone expects. In fact, as Newt alludes to, both Pryor and North Carolina’s Kay Hagan have already come out against executive amnesty and Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich don’t seem so hot about the idea either. There’s certainly a chance that O will open the floodgates on amnesty and the Hagans and Begiches will end up drowning in November. A decent GOP election night of say, six pick-ups in the Senate might balloon to eight or nine.

But I think Democrats are willing to make that trade, even if the Hagans and Begiches aren’t. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi played the long game once before when they were staring down the barrel of a tough midterm, remember. They passed ObamaCare in 2010 despite poll after poll showing public anxiety about the law and they got swamped that November because of it. But even so, and for all their whining about gridlock and GOP obstructionism, I think they’d do it again. They lost the House but gained universal health care; I suspect they’re willing to lose the Senate next year in the name of cementing Latino voters’ loyalty to the Democratic Party in 2016 and beyond. I won’t believe there’s any grassroots blue-collar Democratic backlash brewing either until I see it with my own eyes. The party’s stuck with Obama through everything so far — a perpetually disappointing economic recovery, the Healthcare.gov disaster, and one unsolvable foreign-policy crisis after another. There’s a reason his job approval tends to go no lower than 42 percent or so, the occasional one-day or one-week dip below that number notwithstanding. The entire Democratic leadership in Congress will back him to the hilt on executive amnesty, a few scattered objections from Landrieu and Pryor et al. aside. And of course there’ll be accusations of racism and phony worries about impeachment articulated as necessary, just to remind easily-led liberals in the base that the GOP is evil and opposing Obama’s policies makes you an accomplice to that evil. Democratic voters will fall in line. There’s not going to be a civil war, although there might be a midterm rout. Good enough?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Chris Matthews: Maybe Obama should sue Congress for not doing its job

ChrisMatthews:MaybeObamashouldsueCongressfor

Chris Matthews: Maybe Obama should sue Congress for not doing its job

posted at 4:01 pm on August 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, not only is this not right, as the saying goes, it’s not even wrong. I wonder if he’s being deliberately and absurdly obtuse, as Obama was when he mocked House Republicans for “hatin’,” or if he honestly doesn’t grasp the difference between gridlock within one branch of government and power grabs by one branch at the expense of another. With most lefty media types I’d assume the former, but with Tingles you never know.

Ross Douthat tries to help liberals see the light:

Carter’s 1977 pardon of about 100,000 draft evaders, cited by Posner and others, doesn’t fit the bill. That was, of course, a high-profile, hotly-contested decision, made by the executive alone rather than through legislation. But it wasn’t a power grab, because the pardon power is obviously, explicitly inherent to the presidency (it’s right there in the constitution) in a way that the alleged power to rewrite immigration law is not. The pardon power’s expansiveness is a widely-understood feature of our system, and the draft-dodger issue was publicly debated in the 1976 presidential campaign on precisely that understanding; it wasn’t suddenly invented by Carter midway through his presidency after an attempt to pass a law through Congress failed.

Precisely. You may not agree with Obama’s Afghanistan strategy but it’d be absurd for the House to sue him over it. He’s the commander-in-chief; he’s within his right constitutionally to withdraw or not withdraw as he sees fit. If you don’t like it, express your disapproval at the polls. The same is true for Congress on immigration and health care. Those are broad, complex sectors of domestic policy, naturally within the purview of the legislature. If you don’t like gridlock on amnesty or the employer mandate, get on out there and solve the problem by electing a Democratic House or a Republican Senate. The irony of Matthews’s shpiel is that Obama suing Congress for not “providing services” by doing what he wants would actually be way better than what he’s actually doing. The suit would be ridiculous, essentially arguing that gridlock is unconstitutional, but it’d be much less threatening to separation of powers than the “caesarism,” to borrow Douthat’s term, that Obama’s currently engaged in. Does this guy really not understand that having the president step in and dictate policy when he decides Congress isn’t acting fast enough constitutes a soft dictatorship in the literal meaning of the term? And also that soft dictatorships tend to lead to hard ones? I don’t know what offends me more at this point, the fact that lefties would sign off on this or the stink of mockery that pervades their reactions to Boehner’s suit. If you’re going to own soft dictatorship, own it. But don’t laugh about it, at least. Geez.

Oh, by the way, congressional Democrats are now urging Obama to “go around Congress” and limit tax benefits for companies that move operations overseas even though Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said recently that he didn’t think he had the power to act alone on that issue. Obama himself said of corporations moving abroad, “I don’t care if it’s legal. It’s wrong.” And now, magically, by executive proclamation, it seems it’s going to become legal to punish them for doing it. What’s next, Chris?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

Openthread:Sundaymorningtalkingheads

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:01 am on August 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

With the world in flames and Congress paralyzed over immigration, it’s only right this Sunday morning that we hear directly from the head of the U.S. government. Valerie Jarrett is the featured guest on “Face the Nation.”

If that doesn’t grab you, “Fox News Sunday” will have Marco Rubio and Steve King. I doubt they’ll be allowed to debate, but that would make for quite a convo about amnesty. I’m going to pass on all of that, though, and stick with “This Week,” where the director of the Centers for Disease Control will be on to talk ebola. The full line-up is at Politico.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, August 1, 2014

Obama: This congressional deadlock on immigration means “I’m going to have to act alone”

Obama:Thiscongressionaldeadlockonimmigrationmeans“I’m

Obama: This congressional deadlock on immigration means “I’m going to have to act alone”

posted at 5:21 pm on August 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Corner. At first blush it seems like all he’s saying is that he’ll need to find some money somewhere to process illegal immigrant children now that Congress has failed to agree on a new appropriation. Not so. He’s saying more than that. I can’t find the link now but the NYT had a story a few weeks ago about White House strategy sessions on Obama’s looming amnesty for adult illegals. How, they wondered, could they get the public to accept unilaterally legalizing five million people at a moment when Americans are nervous about the border crisis and want to reduce the incentives for illegals to come here, not add more? Solution: Argue that the border crisis is kinda sorta forcing Obama to legalize America’s adult illegals. The federal government’s enforcement resources are scarce and are desperately needed at the border right now to stem the flow of Central American kids, so let’s leave the people alone who’ve already evaded deportation for five or 10 years and focus all of our attention on the Rio Grande. (Footnote: Obama’s party is also opposed to stemming the flow of kids. Only people who hate children support that.) What he’s doing here, in other words, is laying the rhetorical groundwork for his forthcoming amnesty. When it happens, he’ll point back to this and say “if only Congress had given me the money I asked for, maybe I wouldn’t have had to pull ICE workers off of their cases and reassign them to the border,” never mind that he’s already threatened to veto the House GOP’s bill giving him half a billion dollars more in enforcement. He never wanted Republicans to pass anything, and why should he? He’s established the sinister principle that when a gridlocked Congress can’t agree, the president can do what he wants. That means House Republicans can either do what Senate Democrats say or Obama will do it himself by executive order. He has all the leverage, and the more gridlock there is, the more emphatic his nonsense about being forced to act alone becomes.

But there’s a silver lining here. Yuval Levin:

Let’s imagine that a Republican wins the presidency in 2016, and that Republicans have a majority in the House while Democrats have a majority in the Senate. And let’s say the president and House Republicans try to lower everyone’s personal income-tax rates by 10 percent. The House manages to pass a bill to enact such an across-the-board cut, but Senate Democrats kill it. And let’s imagine that the president then proceeds to announce that, given how helpful he believes his preferred course of action would be to the economy, he will just implement the rate cut himself: His administration will not enforce any legal penalties against people in the 35 percent bracket who only pay a 25 percent tax on their incomes, people in the 25 percent bracket who only pay 15 percent, and so on.

Given some of the ways President Obama has been enforcing Obamacare (his suspension of the employer mandate, for instance), and given what he has already done and reportedly plans to do in immigration enforcement, what would the Democrats’ arguments against such a move by a Republican president consist of?

That’s where we are right now. There’s no legal argument for why Obama can declare a mass moratorium on deportations but President Rand Paul can’t refuse to enforce certain tax rates. The argument for doing one but not the other is political — the public is ambivalent about immigration reform in all its complexities but they’re ferociously opinionated about tax hikes and tax cuts. The only restraint on President Paul would be whether he thinks his job approval rating could sustain the hit. But Obama has established the policy precedent. Two can play at this game, and will.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Video: A huge executive amnesty for illegals would be a big mistake, says … Ed Schultz?

Video:Ahugeexecutiveamnestyforillegalswould

Video: A huge executive amnesty for illegals would be a big mistake, says … Ed Schultz?

posted at 2:41 pm on July 30, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Corner, on a surprise scale from one to 10 I’m grading this a nine. It should be lower — go figure that one of the left’s loudest (and best paid!) union boosters would be leery of cheap illegal labor — but at this point the sheer novelty of a liberal with a megaphone questioning Obama’s power grabs bowls me over. And he’s not just objecting to the wage effect here; he claims to object to it in principle too, arguing that Obama can’t solve every problem by executive decree. Correct me if I’m wrong: Is there even one other prominent lefty commentator on TV, radio, or online who has a problem with the president deciding to grant de facto amnesty to five million people, a power that he himself has scoffed at repeatedly in the past? Almost to a man, they’ve gone face-first into the tank, six short years after deciding that Bush was some sort of Hitler in the making for issuing presidential signing statements (a practice that Obama has continued despite vowing to end it, naturally).

Makes me wonder if this is the first inkling of a backlash. Obama doesn’t care if righties are furious over executive amnesty; they’ll be out in force at the polls in November regardless. He does care, a lot, if blue-collar Democrats react badly. And until now, Democratic leaders haven’t so much as paid lip service to the idea that there may be costs to summarily legalizing five or six million people. (Their immigration soundbites nowadays are reserved for gumming up the deportation process for border kids.) They’re not going to change their talking points just because Big Ed’s sweating, but if he’s sweating, maybe other Democratic voters are too. Then again, Schultz has bucked the lefty line on hot-button issues before only to fall meekly back into line once other progressives tugged on his leash. Let’s see if he can get through a week of shows after this before deciding that, goshdarnit, maybe a gigantic amnesty’s not a bad idea after all.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin imagines the post-amnesty future:

Republicans should prepare a game plan, not merely rule out impeachment (which is the president’s fondest desire). For starters, they and the GOP candidates for 2016 should make clear that any executive order will disappear at the end of Obama’s term and any who step forward for exemptions now may be subject to deportation in 2 1 /2 years. Harsh? No; it’s a sensible deterrent to prevent widespread lawlessness. (The Democratic presidential nominee should be challenged on his or her own plans to rule by executive edict. Let Hillary Clinton try to win an electoral majority on a platform of executive imperialism.)

The GOP, which is frantic to ingratiate itself to Latino voters, should campaign on rolling back an executive amnesty that will be greeted rapturously by Latinos? Also, Hillary can easily finesse this issue. “Only Congress can solve this problem,” she’ll say, “which is why I support comprehensive immigration reform. But in the meantime, to minimize further disruption to America’s immigration system, we should leave President Obama’s orders in place.” Unless there’s a Schultzian backlash that no one sees coming, that’ll play just fine with American voters.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:11

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:11 pm on July 29, 2014 by Allahpundit

Something very strange is happening on Capitol Hill. Democrats can’t talk enough about impeaching a president of their own party. And Republicans keep saying that there isn’t a chance they’ll give it a try…

There is some concern within GOP leadership that the movement could swell if Obama soon takes unilateral action to halt the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Congress will be out of session for all of August, and many lawmakers will be spending time with their constituents back home in their solidly conservative districts, with the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border simmering. These are not prime conditions for moderation…

“I don’t think it would be a problem getting a majority of votes out of the House” to impeach Obama, said a conservative House Republican. “But once it got to the Senate, it’s not going to go anywhere. … Not everybody is going to agree with this, but we got a lot on our plate right now of things we’ve got to fix immediately rather than doing some type of symbolic action.”

***

Chris Wallace of Fox News: Will you consider impeaching the president?

Scalise: This might be the first White House in history that’s trying to start the narrative of impeaching their own president. Ultimately, what we want to do is see the president follow the laws…

Wallace: If he overreaches again on executive action to defer more deportations, what will the House do?

Scalise: We made it clear we’re going to put options on the table to allow the House take legal action against the president when he overreaches his authority… We’re going to continue to be a check and a balance against this administration.

Wallace: But impeachment is off the table?

Scalise: The White House wants to talk about impeachment and ironically they’re going out and trying to fundraise off that, too.

***

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said Scalise was “refusing to rule out” impeachment.

“The fact that the third-highest-ranking Republican in the House is refusing to rule out impeachment offers a stunning view of the extreme measures this Republican Congress will take to push their reckless partisan agenda,” Israel said. “Republicans will spend the final week before their summer vacation plotting their lawsuit against the president, and now Scalise just made it clear that impeachment is absolutely on the table for House Republicans.”…

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) told WND.com that Obama wants House Republicans to impeach him.

In an interview with the conservative news site, he said Obama wants House Republicans to impeach him before the midterm election “because his senior advisers believe that is the only chance the Democratic Party has to avoid a major electoral defeat.”

***

Back in 1998, there was an intense internal debate among Republicans over how much to make the midterms about President Bill Clinton. The strategists who favored attacking the president won the day, but in the end their strategy didn’t work out. Now, there is an intense internal debate among Republicans over how much to make the 2014 midterms about President Barack Obama…

Democrats had successfully argued that Republicans were so obsessed with getting Clinton that they weren’t paying enough attention to the concerns of the American people…

Still, the GOP base is infuriated with Obama, particularly his abuse of executive power. And although Speaker Boehner has shown zero interest in the topic, a few Republican lawmakers are mentioning impeachment. Some party veterans worry that an Obama-focused midterm campaign will yield the same lackluster results as 1998.

Of course, Democrats would love to see Republicans blow their own chances. From the White House down to the party fundraising machine, Democrats have been trolling 24-7 in a transparent effort to goad Republicans into a self-destructive impeachment attempt. “They are desperate to reprise ’98,” says the GOP veteran of his Democratic adversaries. “Not just impeachment, but this whole idea that we’re going to make it all about the president again.”

***

“There is a rumor that the president, around Labor Day, may use executive action to legalize five million people who are here outside the law,” Gingrich said during a speech Tuesday, sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation. “And I think if they do it, it will be trying to provoke the Republicans to institute impeachment.”

Asked if Republicans should impeach Obama, Gingrich replied: “No.”

“It won’t succeed in impeaching Obama,” Gingrich said. “It’s the Democrats who want to talk about it because they raise money off of it.”…

“These people are pretty desperate,” Gingrich said. “Nothing is working. And so they are looking for some fight that allows them to re-polarize the country in terms that help them in the election.

***

After Pfeiffer made his comment about impeachment at a breakfast with reporters on Thursday, the Democrats’ congressional campaign arm sent out a series of e-mail pitches that cited impeachment — and pulled in $2.1 million in online donations, the best four-day haul of the current election cycle.

The average donation was under $19, a sign that the appeal was reaching deeply into the Democrats’ grassroots, and 75,000 of the contributions came from donors who had never given to the DCCC before, officials said…

Democratic strategists also believe that a perceived threat to impeach the first African-American president will also give that crucial segment of the Democratic base an incentive to vote.

On Monday night, members of the Congressional Black Caucus spent an hour on the House floor railing against what they declared the “GOP march toward impeachment,” arguing that the pursuit of a lawsuit over Obama’s use of executive actions is just the first step toward an attempt at his removal.

***

***

Boehner and other Republican leaders are now trying to walk an impossible tightrope. On one hand, they’re arguing that they have no interest in impeaching the president — they know that it would be a political catastrophe if they did — and any suggestion to the contrary is nothing but Democratic calumny. On the other hand, they’re arguing that Obama is a lawless tyrant who is trampling on the Constitution. If that contradiction has put them in a difficult situation, they have no one to blame but themselves…

According to a YouGov poll taken earlier this month, 89 percent of Republicans think “Barack Obama has exceeded the limits of authority granted a President by the US Constitution,” and 68 percent think there is “justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama at this time.” Even when given a number of options including “President Obama has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached,” 63 percent still said he ought to be impeached. A CNN poll found a smaller number of Republicans saying Obama should be impeached, but still a majority of 57 percent.

So the idea that Boehner characterizes as a crazy Democratic slander is the majority position among Republican voters. And they didn’t get the idea from nowhere. They got it because the people they trust — Republican politicians and conservative media figures — have been telling them for years, but with particularly ferocity in the last few months, that Barack Obama is a lawless tyrant who is trampling on the Constitution. They’ve been hearing this not just from the Sean Hannitys and Steve Kings of the world, but from every Republican, up to and including the GOP congressional leadership, on a daily basis. Of course those Republican voters think he should be impeached. It’s absurd for people like Boehner to turn around and say, “Whoa now, who’s thinking of impeachment? That’s just Democrats saying that.”

***

We slipped off of the foundations of the Constitution a long time ago. The fact is, nearly half of the country still supports Obama and his policies including his lawlessness (to the extent that they even know about any of that), and the fact is, the politics of impeaching the nation’s first black president are so dire that they ought to force even Obama’s most ardent critics to think long and hard about the full implications of taking that step.

Nevertheless, the threat of impeachment ought to hang over the head of every president as a powerful disincentive to act outside his powers. Presidents are not kings; Congress should be able to remove them for lawbreaking. President Obama’s recent talk of impeachment, his party fundraising off of the made-up threat, his communications advisers playing that made-up threat for all it’s worth, have cornered Boehner. Impeachment no longer hangs over Obama’s head. He has taken that piece off the board

Barack Obama has set up his final two years in the presidency to be a continuing series of constitutional wars and crises, in which he will never face the most potent constitutional weapon that could be used against him. A national leader who cares about the nation’s well-being would recoil from even the possibility of instigated such conflict for the country. But Barack Obama is not and has never intended to be a national leader. He leads his party and those who support him, and the rest of us are mere enemies to be punished.

***

I think we’re at the point where Obama is actively doing things he knows he has no power to do — because he wants Republicans to mount an effort to impeach him. That would be a political winner, since Americans are generally rationally ignorant of constitutional processes, and impeachment polls badly as a result. They don’t really care whether Obama exceeds his lawful authority if they like what he’s doing, and they see impeachment, not as a necessary Constitutional corrective, but as an irritation brought about by those stupid politicians who can’t get along. And Big Media tells us that when the two sides don’t get along, it’s usually the Republicans’ fault, and who are we to argue?

We get the government we deserve. The idea that the Constitution restrains the branches is pretty much dead; its provisions don’t matter when the public is unwilling to back the side whose territory is being infringed.

Andrew Jackson is famous for saying: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” Well, Barack Obama is saying: “Congress may have the ability to rein me in. Let’s see them do it.”

They won’t. And there goes the system of checks and balances. And what will the public do about it?

Nothing.

***

Via the Washington Free Beacon.

***

Skip to 5:30.

***


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair