DACA expires today - Good job Tards

[UsualName]

What?

SCOTUS will most likely refer to the constitution. And I was presenting the view of a person who has been both a president and a constitutional law instructor.

He looks a lot like Obama too.

I’m sure this will be in many briefs but in the end this case could have large and ranging implications on presidential deference and I’m not so sure a conservative Supreme Court would want to throw the executive branch to the congress where there are 535 different opinions on legislation.

It’s not as cut and dry as you guys make it out to be.

 

[UsualName]

I didn't say the Court will overturn DACA, although I think it would if given the opportunity. I said the Court will uphold Trump ending it. I don't know if DACA was enacted through a formal rulemaking procedure or if it was just another example of Obama acting like some African dictator. Either way, it can be ended by Trump. It's just a question of the hoops he has to jump through.

We really can't thank the open borders crowd enough for opposing Trump on his idiotic and traitorous amnesty. You may well have ensured his reelection. MAGA!

Some days you’re MAGA, some days you’re not.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I’m sure this will be in many briefs but in the end this case could have large and ranging implications on presidential deference and I’m not so sure a conservative Supreme Court would want to throw the executive branch to the congress where there are 535 different opinions on legislation.

It’s not as cut and dry as you guys make it out to be.

Gawd only knows what you are smoking.

The U.S. Constitution already "threw" immigration legislation to Congress. The president has a role in enforcing and implementing the law, but not in making it. He has no authority to unilaterally decide that a certain class of people are no longer subject to laws enacted by Congress.

Your statement as cited below is totally jaundiced, legally obscene, and ignorant:

"I’m not so sure a conservative Supreme Court would want to throw the executive branch to the congress where there are 535 different opinions on legislation."

It is not for the Supreme Court to want or not want a legislative issue to be before Congress regardless of whether there is total agreement or disagreement. That is for Congress to work out per the Constitution and the political process. If they enact something that is constitutionally suspect then the courts are there afterwards, but when Congress is acting within its Constitutionally assigned area, it is none of the Courts business what they would or would not like to see for legislation or their responsibility help Congress avoid disagreement within its process.

Gawd, just stop. Just stand down and stop embarrassing yourself. You are into some real loopy stuff there.

 

[UsualName]

Gawd only knows what you are smoking.

The U.S. Constitution already "threw" immigration legislation to Congress. The president has a role in enforcing and implementing the law, but not in making it. He has no authority to unilaterally decide that a certain class of people are no longer subject to laws enacted by Congress.

Your statement as cited below is totally jaundiced, legally obscene, and ignorant:

"I’m not so sure a conservative Supreme Court would want to throw the executive branch to the congress where there are 535 different opinions on legislation."

It is not for the Supreme Court to want or not want a legislative issue to be before Congress regardless of whether there is total agreement or disagreement. That is for Congress to work out per the Constitution and the political process. If they enact something that is constitutionally suspect then the courts are there afterwards, but when Congress is acting within its Constitutionally assigned area, it is none of the Courts business what they would or would not like to see for legislation or their responsibility help Congress avoid disagreement within its process.

Gawd, just stop. Just stand down and stop embarrassing yourself. You are into some real loopy stuff there.

Wrong. The executive branch has deferential powers over the enforcement of laws. Why do you think Trump has the ability to sit on the sanctions congress imposed on Russia?

 

[Nine_Ender]

Totally degrading remarks. You insinuate Americans that are black and Hispanic live on a plantation as if they don’t know what is best for themselves and their families. You invoke these slavery references like they are no big deal.

Let me ask you a question, Mr. Internet tough guy, when was the last time you told a black person they vote democrat because they are on a plantation and follow their master to their face?

He's extremely ignorant and can't help himself. It's just a small step from his usual bigotry to open racism. This time he slipped up and crossed the line. He's a walking, talking example of how some states and rural areas in the US have poor education standards and have a lot of people who don't much about the world beyond where they grew up. Some of the things he says about Canada are extremely ignorant. It is what it is.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

There are two separate issues here. Don't confuse them. One, is Obama's policy not to enforce part of the immigration law. What if Trump decided not to enforce the capital gains tax? Would that an exercise in presidential discretion that the Court should avoid interfering in?

I have to admit that I am not sure of the answer. On the one hand, it seems plainly obvious that the constitutional lawmaking power is vested in the congress and the president cannot therefore unilaterally modify statue law. On the other hand, do we really want the unelected Judicial Branch dictating how the president makes policy? Weren't we angry about that when the courts interfered with Trump's muslim ban?

Since the Nixon resignation, where one of the complaints concerned his not spending appropriated funds, it has been the accepted practice that presidents lack the authority to unilaterally rewrite existing statue law. Obama thumbed his nose at that very useful precedent.

The other issue though is whether Trump can overturn Obama's DACA policy. It seems beyond dispute that he can.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

He's a dumb fuck on the internet that doesn't know any better.

Heh, the Fake Canadian has arrived to prove that libs only speak respectfully.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Wrong. The executive branch has deferential powers over the enforcement of laws. Why do you think Trump has the ability to sit on the sanctions congress imposed on Russia?

I am not convinced that he has that power. "Ability" and "Constitutionality" are two very different things in the short run. I am not convinced he does not either. The Constitution gives the president a leadership role in the conduct of foreign affairs. Yet, Congress has a role too so they have to duke it and make their cases politically and judicially. It is the same with war making powers.

The power to make immigration law, however, is solidly with Congress. The president arguably has some emergency powers of a very short term nature where "immigration" presents as "invasion" and some discretion in the enforcement based on resources but is not able to declare a class of immigrants as being not subject to enforcement contrary to what Congress has already enacted. Your ilk like to argue that Congress needs to pass legislation to straighten this all out. The reality is that there is already legislation on the books. The law can be changed of course, and Congress either does or does not do that. If they do nothing, then the current law stands.

 

[jem]

what does deferential powers mean?
please define how you are using it within penumbras of the constitution.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

There are two separate issues here. Don't confuse them. One, is Obama's policy not to enforce part of the immigration law. What if Trump decided not to enforce the capital gains tax? Would that an exercise in presidential discretion that the Court should avoid interfering in?

I have to admit that I am not sure of the answer. .

There is a difference between the president and congress having different interpretations of the law and a situation where the President agrees what the law is and agrees that Congress has the constitutional authority there but issues an order saying that the law will not be enforced.

In the first instance, the courts are there for that-at least to settle a legal issue as long as it is a legal issue and not a political issue. In the second instance, the President is properly subject to impeachment and that is the remedy. The Constitution is crystal clear that the President "shall take care to see that the laws of the country are faithfully executed."

Not to get too far into the weeds, but in some instances I think parties can get a Writ of Mandamus from a court which orders a public official to perform their duty or complete a specific task required by law, and so on.