So, in your book, the President is the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional?
Never said that, nor anything close.
However, to defend the Constitution to the best of his ability will require him to make some judgment calls. This would be particularly (though not necessarily exclusively) true on issues where SCOTUS hasn’t directly weighed in on the question.
The constitution gives the authority to enact laws to Congress. So, in order to defend the Constitution, he needs to defer to Congress on legislation.
Bricker: It would be nice if you’d just participate in this thread instead of going for the silly gotcha.
It would seem to be a meme going around the boards at the moment.
Well, the Constitution, which you seem to hold in such high esteem dictates that the President is elected to defend the laws contained in it. It does not give him the discretion to defend only those which laws he feel are constitutional. And the assumption is that they are all Constitutional. Now he can petition congress to change laws he feels are unconstitutional. But until they do, or SCOTUS rules otherwise, they are the law of the land and he is duty-bound to defend them.
Where am I wrong?
It could only possibly be appropriate had he campaigned on the principle of abolishing CGT (and furthermore IMO had it been an important part of his campaign).
Otherwise how on earth could that possibly be considered appropriate? It’s a no brainer.
(The above a moral/ethical analysis. I have no idea about the legalities)
For the moment, I just want to see where the discussion goes. My opinions sometimes change as a result of reading reasoning here. I started out thinking that the only difference between my hypo and the immigration business was the very dangerous, “Well, we like these results but don’t like those,” which is, in my view, a really poor baseline principle.
But then someone pointed out that one law’s text actually mentions discretionary enforcement and the other’s does not. To me, that’s a much more solid base upon which to rest a distinction.
Poor fellow, this time the gotcha attempt blew up in your face before you could even spring it and run away giggling, didn’t it?
Posting things just to see what reaction they get is generally frowned upon here anyway, so I’m told.
Nominated for least helpful, most needlessly inflammatory post of the day. Rest easy, your competitors aren’t even close.
The Pit would be better.
Don’t you understand anything about the goals of the right? This would just prove that government doesn’t work, as they’ve been saying all along.
On the bright side, there wouldn’t be money to enforce immigration laws or build the fence.
The biggest political difference is that those benefiting the most from a capital gains tax elimination have the most money to donate to Republicans or to put in Super PACS, Those benefiting from immigration reform have little money to use to buy politicians ^h^h^h express their free speech rights.
I have to believe there’s a breaking point at which most people wake up and go “Oh yeah, there’s a reason we had government and taxes…”
Otherwise I might just cry.
Link, please? I can see Attorney General has discretion in granting asylum, but cannot find the section that gives AG discretion whom to deport.
Ignoring the topic of the thread simply to attack another poster is out of line.
Knock it off.
= = =
Similarly, this is too close to junior modding. If you see a violation of the rules or otherwise bad behavior, Report it rather than provoking a fight over the issue.
[ /Moderating ]
U.S. Code Title 8, specifically Section 1103 and 1154, grants the executive branch discretion in deciding whom to deport or not deport. See Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956).
The president can’t do that with taxes
The president can do that with immigration
Anything else?
At least one serious reply… one potential issue is that of precedent. So Obama tells the INS people to selectively enforce immigration laws in one way based on his party’s philosophy, then the next president tells them to selectively enforce immigration laws in another way based on his party’s philosophy. Arguably objectionable based on separation of powers or what have you, but probably not going to unravel the fabric of society and government.
On the other hand, hypothetical-president-Romney starts nullifying sections of the tax code based on his party’s philosophy, and then the next president starts nullifying sections of the tax code based on HIS party’s philosophy, and… ho-ly-shit everything just goes kablooie.
Wait a sec. The claim was, and I quote: “The immigration law in question** explicitly gives the executive** (in the body of the Attorney General) the discretion to choose which cases to prosecute. It is written in the law.”
Can you point the language in the section you cited that “**explicitly **gives the executive” such discretion? What I see is general language that basically says “Attorney General is in charge of executing the law”. The other section deals with petitions - which is not what this is about. At least I didn’t see anything in the WH announcement that said that every such alien has to petition for special treatment. As far as I see, the section talks about petitioning for specific reasons (“because Obama said I could” is not one such) and each has to be reviewed individually to verify that such reasons actually exist.
Let’s suppose that Congress has allocated $100,000 annually to pay salaries of IRS Auditors, total. That will buy two or three of them, maybe. They must then necessarily exercise discretion in the cases that they choose to investigate, and no one would find it too unusual if we were to learn that they only look at the returns of the nation’s millionaires, neglecting all others.
Although I find it somewhat distasteful to admit, in this situation I see little problem with Romney’s decision. The hampered IRS will obviously be looking only at a subset of all returns no matter what he does, and there’s no greater miscarriage of justice post Romney-order than there was before. Both before and after Romney’s speech, lawbreaking will be prevalent. It’s the legislative branch that brought this upon themselves by defunding the agency, and in either case they purchase exactly the amount of law enforcement that they desire. Limited funding necessitates discretion in enforcement, as a rule.
In the real world case of immigration, the Obama administration has been deporting record-breaking numbers of illegal immigrants annually. There was an 89% increase in deportations from 2008 to 2011 (from PBS), in spite of the fact that the estimated number of new illegal immigrants fell over the same period. It’s beyond dispute that the current administration has been exercising its duty to enforce these laws, above and beyond any previous administration. If you want more cases processed, it requires greater funding, and I’m willing to bet that Congress doesn’t have the political will to do that. Via BusinessInsider,
In the mean time, it would be amoral to not prioritize the deportation of those with criminal records over children, veterans, college students and young professionals.