# Is President Obama's proposed executive action on illegal immigrants an abuse of power? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 20, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155 "2014-11-20T13:29:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/181 "2014-12-03T22:01:01Z")
Sure. But the taxpayers of Texas, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the country, will be paying the bill for this pointless litigation. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/182 "2014-12-04T00:46:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I took it to mean her “boss, who got it from a colleague, who _wrote_ it in the Huffington Post”. Precisely. Sorry, busy day plus office holiday party. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/183 "2014-12-04T00:48:38Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I understand you are trying to help but that can lead to more confusion. Dan Kowalski wrote the HuPo article and that article is simply an opinion that Cruz and Abbott shouldn’t object to Obama’s Presidential Memorandums. Why? Because 130 law professors don’t think they should. Hardly a legal argument or proof of knowledge about this subject. > > It’s reported that other Presidents have taken similar executive actions but those actions were never challenged in the courts. It looks like Obama’s Presidential Memorandums will be challenged in the courts and I can hardly wait to find out if Obama’s actions are an abuse of Presidential power. Dan Kowalski is also [one of the most experienced and knowledgeable immigration lawyers in the country,](http://www.thefowlerlawfirm.com/kowalski.html) and is Editor-in-Chief of one of the premier immigration law publications in the country. He knows what he’s talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/184 "2014-12-04T01:03:07Z")
So let me get this straight. If I post several pages of Justice Department memoranda explaining why Obama’s executive orders are legal examples of prosecutorial discretion, I get complaints that a “wall of legalese” is not an acceptable response. Now, when I post a link to a brief story with links to the actual source documents, I get feedback that it’s oversimplification, and how can 130 law professors possibly know anything about the law, and why should anyone believe them? Seriously, folks, what WOULD be an acceptable legal argument and/or summary? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/185 "2014-12-04T01:20:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure. But the taxpayers of Texas, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the country, will be paying the bill for this pointless litigation. And that is why there are lawyers that should know better that are willing to jump to it anyhow. Even though they know that they will lose, they do know that there is a number of people with access to money that are ignorant about a lot, and that they expect ideology to triumph past decisions and cases. The lawyers will win a lot of dough though. However, I think that many lawyers are beginning to notice the high levels of poison in several cases. So much that they ignore the mountains of money that will benefit their firms. Lately there cases that the Republicans are wanting to take to court that are so dumb or hopeless that law firms do not want to take the coming failure and pressure from business groups (that are impossible to ignore as traditionally they support the Republicans more) no matter how good it would be to their immediate bottom line of the law firm. [http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/barack-obama-john-boehner-lawsuit-112333.html](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/barack-obama-john-boehner-lawsuit-112333.html) > [@](#): > > House Speaker John Boehner’s still-unfiled lawsuit against President Barack Obama for exceeding his constitutional power is in more trouble. > > For the second time in two months, a major law firm has ceased work on the lawsuit, sources say. > > Attorney Bill Burck and the Quinn Emanuel firm halted preparations for the proposed suit in recent weeks, according to two sources familiar with the situation. Last month, the lawyer originally hired to pursue the case, David Rivkin of Baker Hostetler, made a similar abrupt exit. > [@](#): > > In addition, a Congressional Research Service report completed in September and published Friday by two liberal lawyers in the Washington Monthly indicated that a suit focusing on delayed enforcement of some aspects of Obamacare was likely to get little traction in the courts. > > Some Democratic lawyers and a few Republican attorneys have said they believe it’s possible no suit will ever be filed. > > While it’s surprising that two different outside law firms could have cold feet about a case, the House has previous experience with such problems. > > In 2011, Atlanta-based law firm King & Spalding backed out of a contract to represent the House in litigation defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Gay rights activists pressured King & Spalding client Coca-Cola to urge the firm not to handle the case. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/186 "2014-12-04T02:18:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The argument to the contrary makes some sense in a vacuum, but to anyone familiar with the principle of prosecutorial discretion it makes none at all. Doesn’t the concept of prosecutorial discretion usually apply to criminal cases, and not civil cases such as immigration or work status? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/187 "2014-12-04T02:27:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Doesn’t the concept of prosecutorial discretion usually apply to criminal cases, and not civil cases such as immigration or work status? Well, it depends how formally you are talking about. For example, I bet one could raid just about any restaurant in Chicago (or any other major city) and find undocumented workers, but this country does not have the resources or the political will to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/188 "2014-12-04T04:45:07Z")
I’m having fun imagining that the judge orders the governors of the states filing the suit to obey/enforce/fulfill every law on the books in their states. No discretion at all, ever. If they still have an 1835 law saying that motorcars can’t go faster than 30 mph…that has to be enforced. Fully. A guy can dream… ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/189 "2014-12-04T15:40:46Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Dan Kowalski is also [one of the most experienced and knowledgeable immigration lawyers in the country,](http://www.thefowlerlawfirm.com/kowalski.html) and is Editor-in-Chief of one of the premier immigration law publications in the country. He knows what he’s talking about. > [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > So let me get this straight. If I post several pages of Justice Department memoranda explaining why Obama’s executive orders are legal examples of prosecutorial discretion, I get complaints that a “wall of legalese” is not an acceptable response. > > Now, when I post a link to a brief story with links to the actual source documents, I get feedback that it’s oversimplification, and how can 130 law professors possibly know anything about the law, and why should anyone believe them? > > Seriously, folks, what WOULD be an acceptable legal argument and/or summary? Who said 130 law professors don’t know anything about the law? {cough} strawman {cough} Can I assume Kowalski knows he is arguing against a case that has not actually been filed yet? Obama didn’t issue an Executive Order. Obama issued two Presidential Memorandums. The first, _Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century and Presidential Memorandum_, and two _Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Immigrants and Refugees._ Does the State of Texas have legal standing to file a case against Obama’s two recent Presidential Memorandums? Has the State of Texas suffered some injury (monetary, physical, emotional, whatever) that would be grounds for such a case to proceed? Is Kowalski arguing from a position that there is no need for Texas to file suit or that he doesn’t want Texas to file suit? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/190 "2014-12-04T16:29:43Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Who said 130 law professors don’t know anything about the law? {cough} strawman {cough} Let’s be real – you stated that “Dan Kowalski wrote the HuPo article and that article is simply an opinion that Cruz and Abbott shouldn’t object to Obama’s Presidential Memorandums. Why? Because 130 law professors don’t think they should. Hardly a legal argument or proof of knowledge about this subject.” You essentially stated that 130 law professors and one of the most experienced practicing immigration attorneys in the country are less qualified to judge the legality of Obama’s actions in the immigration realm than…Ted Cruz? Have you actually read the memo that the 130 law professors signed? Do you think that 130 law professors are not qualified to evaluate the legality of an executive action? What exactly are your own qualifications to evaluate the legality of the President’s action and/or your arguments that Obama’s actions were not lawful? The Justice Department issued a detailed legal memorandum which evaluated that his actions were lawful – have you read that? Presumably if you have, you don’t agree with it – what is your analysis? > [@](#): > > Can I assume Kowalski knows he is arguing against a case that has not actually been filed yet? Kowalski was arguing against a case that he anticipated would be filed, of which he could take a quite educated guess at the legal substance. > [@](#): > > Does the State of Texas have legal standing to file a case against Obama’s two recent Presidential Memorandums? Has the State of Texas suffered some injury (monetary, physical, emotional, whatever) that would be grounds for such a case to proceed? Is Kowalski arguing from a position that there is no need for Texas to file suit or that he doesn’t want Texas to file suit? I haven’t yet read the [suit that was just filed](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/20141203ImmigrationExecutiveOrderLawsuit.pdf), and I am not a lawyer (though I am a paralegal who has worked in the immigration field in various capacities for most of the time since my first job after college, in 1990). So I am not really in a position to evaluate who has legal standing to do what. However, I do have a fair bit of practical experience with prosecutorial discretion (which has existed in the immigration realm in various forms for many, many years – and in fact I just filed a citizenship application yesterday for someone who was legally able to do so because of his removability because of minor criminal issues that occurred many years ago, which the prosecutor decided not to pursue because of his other positive equities – serious medical issues which essentially would have been a death sentence if he had been deported, length of time since the offenses, minor nature of the offenses, extensive length of time as a permanent resident, and extensive family ties in the U.S.) This is the kind of thing my firm, as well as immigration judges, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, etc. deal with every single day. There is a large body of case law and legal memoranda issued by various agencies in the immigration realm regarding how to balance positive vs. negative factors in exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or granting relief from deportation. It’s not some new thing that Obama pulled out of thin air. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/191 "2014-12-04T16:31:05Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Doesn’t the concept of prosecutorial discretion usually apply to criminal cases, and not civil cases such as immigration or work status? Prosecutorial discretion applies to more or less any type of case where the government brings suit. So criminal cases, administrative proceedings (anything from the EPA suing polluters to a state agency revoking a professional license), immigration (which is basically just another type of administrative matter), or even wholly civil matters where the government acts as a traditional plaintiff (like a suit to enforce a publicly held copyright, for example.) Prosecutorial discretion sounds like a nebulous and legalistic concept, but it really isn’t. It’s just a recognition of the fact that the government’s resources are finite and most of the time it cannot pursue every possible case. > [@doorhinge](#): > > Does the State of Texas have legal standing to file a case against Obama’s two recent Presidential Memorandums? Well, the memoranda aren’t really actions; they’re a list of instructions to the SHS that may never be acted on in whatever way Abbott objects to. So there is a ripeness problem. And by problem, I mean absolute bar. Texas _might_ have standing to challenge whatever actions the DHS ultimately takes but that seems unlike.y ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/192 "2014-12-04T16:54:30Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Let’s be real – you stated that “Dan Kowalski wrote the HuPo article and that article is simply an opinion that Cruz and Abbott shouldn’t object to Obama’s Presidential Memorandums. Why? Because 130 law professors don’t think they should. Hardly a legal argument or proof of knowledge about this subject.” You essentially stated that 130 law professors and one of the most experienced practicing immigration attorneys in the country are less qualified to judge the legality of Obama’s actions in the immigration realm than…Ted Cruz? > > Have you actually read the memo that the 130 law professors signed? Do you think that 130 law professors are not qualified to evaluate the legality of an executive action? I have no opinion about whether Obama’s actions are legal, but as a general comment, you can’t prove much from “130 law professors” signing some statement. It’s not like there are only 130 law professors in the country and this is the consensus opinion of all of them. This is just the opinion of 130 experts that someone with an agenda went around collecting opinions from. At most, what you can show from this is that the idea that it’s legal is not some far out notion, but that’s about it. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Prosecutorial discretion applies to more or less any type of case where the government brings suit. So criminal cases, administrative proceedings (anything from the EPA suing polluters to a state agency revoking a professional license), immigration (which is basically just another type of administrative matter), or even wholly civil matters where the government acts as a traditional plaintiff (like a suit to enforce a publicly held copyright, for example.) > > Prosecutorial discretion sounds like a nebulous and legalistic concept, but it really isn’t. It’s just a recognition of the fact that the government’s resources are finite and most of the time it cannot pursue every possible case. ISTM that part of this issue might be the fact that it’s not really about prosecutorial discretion in this case. Obama is pretty open about why he’s doing what he’s doing, and it’s not because “_the government’s resources are finite and […] it cannot pursue every possible case_”. He’s doing it as a deliberate policy. At best he’s found a legal loophole in the bogus claim that it’s about prosecutorial discretion. But to this legal layman, it’s an interesting question as to whether the concept of “prosecutorial discretion” can be used as a legal fiction in cases that very clearly have nothing to with prosecutorial discretion. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/193 "2014-12-04T17:04:03Z")
It’s not an interesting question to lawyers; it’s a matter of settled law. The fact that it is a deliberate policy does not mean it is not discretionary. Rudy Giuliani directed his city attorneys to focus on street crime as mayor of NYC almost to the exclusion of investigating and prosecuting certain white collar crimes. The fact that he did so as a matter of policy and not on a case-by-case basis did not take it outside the realm of prosecutorial discretion. The Bush II administration exercised its discretion in choosing not to prosecute environmental violations. Still fair game. If Obama was not enforcing immigration laws at all, you could very well say that he was not exercising discretion but abusing it - effectively abdicating his responsibilities. That’s not the case. As the professors point out, Obama has spend every dollar Congress appropriated for immigration enforcement. He’s deported more people than any prior president. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/194 "2014-12-04T17:24:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Rudy Giuliani directed his city attorneys to focus on street crime as mayor of NYC almost to the exclusion of investigating and prosecuting certain white collar crimes. The fact that he did so as a matter of policy and not on a case-by-case basis did not take it outside the realm of prosecutorial discretion. The Bush II administration exercised its discretion in choosing not to prosecute environmental violations. Did these people make these matters of policy directives? I doubt it. I imagine Giuliani focused on street crime as a matter of policy and the white collar crime prosecution decline (assuming it happened altogether) was an incidental outcome. (I’m not sure mayors have anything to do with prosecuting white collar crime altogether.) And I’m even more skeptical of your claims about Bush. Do you have any evidence that he decided as a matter of policy to not prosecute environmental violations? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/195 "2014-12-04T17:29:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Prosecutorial discretion applies to more or less any type of case where the government brings suit. So criminal cases, administrative proceedings (anything from the EPA suing polluters to a state agency revoking a professional license), immigration (which is basically just another type of administrative matter), or even wholly civil matters where the government acts as a traditional plaintiff (like a suit to enforce a publicly held copyright, for example.) Professor Ronald D. Rotunda stated otherwise in his testimony before Congress on Tuesday. Some quotes: > [@](#): > > However, prosecutorial discretion relates to decisions not to enforce (or step up enforcement of) _criminal_ laws. Emphasis in the original. > [@](#): > > However, distributing social security cards and granting permission to work has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion. > [@](#): > > Prosecutorial discretion does not authorize the President to waive the provisions of civil law. [http://judiciary.house.gov/\_cache/files/674a84d0-5030-41df-976a-5ef0c1c63853/rotunda-testimony.pdf](http://judiciary.house.gov/_cache/files/674a84d0-5030-41df-976a-5ef0c1c63853/rotunda-testimony.pdf) (PDF, page 10) ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/196 "2014-12-04T20:01:46Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > …Have you actually read the memo that the 130 law professors signed? Do you think that 130 law professors are not qualified to evaluate the legality of an executive action? What exactly are your own qualifications to evaluate the legality of the President’s action and/or your arguments that Obama’s actions were not lawful? The Justice Department issued a detailed legal memorandum which evaluated that his actions were lawful – have you read that? Presumably if you have, you don’t agree with it – what is your analysis? > …I haven’t yet read the [suit that was just filed](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/20141203ImmigrationExecutiveOrderLawsuit.pdf), and I am not a lawyer (though I am a paralegal who has worked in the immigration field in various capacities for most of the time since my first job after college, in 1990). So I am not really in a position to evaluate who has legal standing to do what. My qualifications are owning a personal computer and having internet access. 😃 While 130 law professors are certainly qualified to give their opinion of how a case might be settled or if a case should be filed but 18 States have filed suit against Obama’s executive actions. The question now is whether Obama’s minions can, or can not, prevent the case from proceeding to trial. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/197 "2014-12-04T21:32:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > And I’m even more skeptical of your claims about Bush. Do you have any evidence that he decided as a matter of policy to not prosecute environmental violations? It was pretty common knowledge at the time. Nothing secret about it or anything. Google “New Source Review investigation” or see [here](http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=the_bush_administration_s_environmental_record_1055#the_bush_administration_s_environmental_record_1055). > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Professor Ronald D. Rotunda stated otherwise in his testimony before Congress on Tuesday. Professor Rotunda is a professor at a third tier law school,\* and his testimony is just argument with only the appearance of support. He is cherry picking quotations from old cases and discussing things which are - from a legal perspective - completely irrelevant, like what the president said he could or couldn’t do in interviews. That’s certainly relevant to Fox News, and may very well be a decisive factor in the court of public opinion, but it has no impact at all on whether he has this authority. With regard to the specific quotation you mentioned: > [@](#): > > However, prosecutorial discretion relates to decisions not to enforce (or step up enforcement of) criminal laws. … I suggest you read the following footnote, which indicates that prosecutorial discretion does apply to administrative actions. He must have been a bit confused when he cited that case. \*normally I would not bring that up, but you seem to view him as an authority. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/198 "2014-12-04T22:24:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It was pretty common knowledge at the time. Nothing secret about it or anything. Google “New Source Review investigation” or see [here](http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=the_bush_administration_s_environmental_record_1055#the_bush_administration_s_environmental_record_1055). 😕 We’re discussing the use of prosecutorial discretion as a legal fiction when making policy changes. Your cite appears to be about an agency reinterpreting the NSR regulations, which has nothing at all to do with this issue. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/199 "2014-12-05T04:03:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Professor Rotunda is a professor at a third tier law school,\* and his testimony is just argument with only the appearance of support. > > With regard to the specific quotation you mentioned: > > … I suggest you read the following footnote, which indicates that prosecutorial discretion does apply to administrative actions. He must have been a bit confused when he cited that case. > > \*normally I would not bring that up, but you seem to view him as an authority. Third tier law school, eh? Maybe he and his wife just wanted to enjoy warmer weather in their elder years. 😃 Here’s his CV: [http://chapman.edu/our-faculty/ronald-rotunda](http://chapman.edu/our-faculty/ronald-rotunda) Harvard Harvard Law (also Harvard Law Review) University of Illinois George Mason University Are those third tier schools, as well? In addition, he authored the leading textbook on Professional Ethics, and one of the most widely used textbooks on ConLaw. He also wrote a seven volume treatise on constitutional law that has been cited in court rulings all over the country, including at the SCOTUS. What are your credentials, in comparison? As for your comment about the footnote, are you talking about footnote #37? If so, the Professor clearly states that the case had to with standing, not with an agency’s (lack of) power to ignore the law. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155/200 "2014-12-05T04:25:59Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > I don’t like Obama. I don’t like his or the democrats’ general view on immigration. But even I’m willing to admit that it probably isn’t illegal. As much as I dislike Obama as President and believe this is a horrible idea, I have to agree that Congress is looking stupid complaining about a power they could have held on to themselves yet chose to give to the executive branch. Similar to how only Congress can declare war yet Presidents conduct war all of the time under the War Powers Act. If you don’t want then to use the power, don’t give it to them. But I do have a question. Let’s say the new Congress passes a law limiting the President’s discretion in this matter. Of course Obama vetos it but would he suffer any blowback from that going into election 2016? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-president-obamas-proposed-executive-action-on-illegal-immigrants-an-abuse-of-power/705155.md?page=11)