The President willfully breaks the law

I remember e-mailing Snowe and Collins telling them they would become irrelevant , that Obama wold not need Congress. This has to be challenged by Congress, but I am not holding my breath.

Article II Section of the U. S. Constitution reads, "The President......shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

It is obvious that the President and a lot of other people are totally unaware what the Consitution says and means as all he had to do was cite his authority, under the Constitution, to do what he did and for those who criticize the move to not do so by citing his lack of authority. You can be critical of his action, but you cannot say he had no authority to do so. When Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon he did so for the illegal acts he committed while in office. If he had not resigned, he would have been impeached and Ford had no power to pardon him, except for the criminal offises. He did so even before Nixon was charged.

So Romney could just do the same thing if Obamacare is upheld, best news I have had in awhile.

I don't see what Obamacare has to do with pardons and reprieves. What is your point?

READ HERE: Why Obama’s Immigration Executive Action Is Unconstitutional

While he might be allowed to stop the deportations, he is not allowed to go against the law and issue work permits to illegal immigrants.

Maybe not, zmogus.

James Taranto has a pretty well-thought-out read on this issue today. For all the hyperventilating going on among conservative circles, Taranto - no liberal he, by the way - makes a pretty good argument that there's less here than meets the eye.

Taranto, if you're unfamiliar with him, is NOT a lawyer and doesn't pretend to be one. But he does have a very keen, very analytical approach, and also has all the legal resources a senior player at the Wall Street Journal could desire. He could very well be correct in his assessment here.

There has been a bill submitted to oppose this, an R senator, I believe. My analysis is that it doesn't matter. Obama's position is on the street and he has nothing to lose between now and the election. The more often this comes up, the better he'll look to his scofflaw supporters.

A very clever political play.

As Rush says, stand by for college loan forgiveness, and underwater mortgage relief.

Well if Obamacare passes , we could all be given pardons / reprives for not buying insurance, to avoid the criminal penalty.

Islander: That's true, but do you want your future in the hands of Barrack Obama?

Article II Section of the U. S. Constitution reads, "The President......shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

It is obvious that the President and a lot of other people are totally unaware what the Consitution says and means as all he had to do was cite his authority, under the Constitution, to do what he did and for those who criticize the move to not do so by citing his lack of authority. You can be critical of his action, but you cannot say he had no authority to do so. When Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon he did so for the illegal acts he committed while in office. If he had not resigned, he would have been impeached and Ford had no power to pardon him, except for the criminal offises. He did so even before Nixon was charged.

This pertains to US citizens, over which he holds the power granted by the US Constitution, not those from foreign countries. Obama has no power to do what he is doing.

A more important question than the mere constitutionality of Obama's Administrative Amnesty to millions of illegals (and future voters) just before the election, is why Mitt Romney, who was stronger than all the other GOP candidates on being against Amnesty and illegal immigration has decided to take a pass on this latest outrageous example of having the Democrat Party trying to "elect a new people".

Romney's silence is deafening and damning. Who's advising him? Karl Rove? "Hispandering" did not help either George W. Bush or John McCain with the likes of La Raza or Hispanics in general. Why betray your base, the middle class working people of America who are picking up the tab for the cost of millions of illegals who take their jobs during a severe recession, and costing them billions in hospital care, educational instruction, and prison incarceration. The American people, especially the working classes who might be attracted to Romney's economic message and are opposed to illegal immigration and Amnesty, are being thrown under the bus. Why? It seems to be bad politics and stupid economics.

Writer James Fulford (www.Vare.com) suspects that Romney is bowing to the "cheap labor" wing of the Republican Party, especially in the construction, agricultural, and tourism industries. These big GOP money contributors apparently are more important to him than the votes of the millions of working Americans who want the invasion of their country halted and the dispossession of their livilhood stopped. Fulford thinks Romney's silence may well cost him the election.

See Fulford's article: http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-romney-may-have-lost-the-...

Romney better re-think his silence, challenge the interests of the cheap labor lobby, and start uttering the word "impeachment" against the depredations of the corrupt Obama regime before its too late. Opposing Amnesty is aligning oneself with the American people. Silence can only guarantee Romney's defeat by discouraging and betraying his base.

Romney is keeping silent purposely because Obama is within his power to do what he did. As I said above, the Constitution gives Obama the power to issue pardons and reprieves. A later check of the Naturalization rules gives the government the authority to waive just about all the requirements for naturalization if, in their opinion, it is in the "national interest". Its what happens when the politicians give or care little about the legislation they pass as long at allows them to get reelected.

If you pay attention to what Rush Limbaugh says you will note that in the last few days he has avoided this issue because it does not allow him to criticize Obama because he flaunted the Constitution. I had called the program on Tuesday and told his screener I wanted to remind Rush that Obama was in his rights to do what he did. I was to be next up after waiting in the queu for nearly an hour when it came on to 3:00. His screeener told me he would call me to be on first if the subject came up on Wednesday. Needless to say, it never did and hasn't since. So much for Limbaugh objectivity.

pnconusa says: "Romney is keeping silent purposely because Obama is within his power to do what he did. As I said above, the Constitution gives Obama the power to issue pardons and reprieves".

Besides you, says who? "Pardons and reprieves" to foreigners who illegally invaded the country? Perhaps the representatives of the American people should judge that through articles of impeachment. Since when can a President just ignore the law of the land on immigration statues and just flatly state that I'm essentially going to make law by a fiat degree because I couldn't get it passed through the Legislative branch of government.

I doubt very much that Rush Limbaugh refused to answer your inquirey because he felt that Obama was within his constitutional rights. Limbaugh is no lawyer (his brother is). Actually, he has shown very little interest in immigration issues over the years. Perhaps you should instead call in to the Howie Carr radio show which follows Limbaugh's and see what kind of reception you get from this Portland native who is not shy about giving his hard-line opinion on illegal immigration or taking on those who disagree with him. Give it a try.

Today in FL before an Hispanic audience Romney essentially avoided the issue of what he'd do as President about illegal immigration or even what he'd do about Obama's audacious vote-buying Amnesty scheme. The Democrats have been pandering to illegals for votes ever since former CA Governor Pete Wilson's attempt (successfully for a while) to halt illegal immigration there. But the Jack Kemp/Wall Street Journal open borders (cheap labor) wing of the GOP screamed bloody murder and the Democrats have piled on ever since then. Result: Color CA gone from the GOP forever. As the illegals flooded in, the white middle class headed out. CA is also a fiscal basket case now. Demography is political and economic Destiny in America.

Romney needs to default to the "Sailer Strategy" (www.isteve.com) and concentrate on getting more of the white vote (still over 63% of the country) by up-holding current immigration law and stopping the invasion of our country by the tens of millions of the 3rd World, including about half of Mexico, who want to come here for the welfare and the jobs or both. This is at the expense of taxpaying Americans who have to pick up the economic and social tab for the corrupt politicians looking for cheap votes and rapacious corporations looking for cheap labor.

Romney's bow to Sen. Marco Rubio's wishes will win him no Hispanic votes but it will create cynicism among his base who suspect they're being betrayed again because of the influence of clueless political consultants and money-bag lobbyists. The GOP on this issue seems to have become JS Mill's "Stupid Party" and is no match for the self-serving schemes of the "Evil Party".

" . . Romney is bowing to the "cheap labor" wing of the Republican Party . . "

That and to those who view the illegals as customers, too. More customers, not different customers. It even goes further . . more taxpayers. In order for the country to work at all, it needs to keep expanding. There are many who believe that this phenomina-mum is better left unmanaged.

Let’s consult a professor of Constitutional law on this question:

In March 2011 President Obama explained the separation of powers to a meeting of Hispanic activists: "Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president...America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job.”

It’s part of his job because Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires a president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Those law are passed by that branch called the Congress of the United States.

In 2011 Obama’s job may have been to enforce the law, but in 2012 his job is to get re-elected. His Hispanic base has been weakening in the polls. He believes he has found a way to get around those laws.

If only Mitt Romney would listen more to the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal on immigration policy his campaign for the Presidency can't go wrong. See Steve Sailer's article: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/06/romney-not-clear-on-concept-of-81.html

Taxfoe: At the expense of Tom C telling us to get a room I would reiterate. The President has an unconstrained power to issue pardons and appeals. Illegal immigrants broke U. S. Federal Law. Obama can pardon them for this offense and they cannot be prosecuted. They can however be deported but how far have we gotten with this exercise when the government fails to enforce the law.. The U. S. Congress has the power under Article I Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution "to establish an uniform rule for naturalization". Under existing legislation the department responsible for the issuance of "GreenCards" and other naturalization matters can waive nearly all the requirements for issuance failing that can cite "national interest" to issue work visas which is the first requirement of naturalzation. If you wish to deny what the law says I have no means available to help you.

PM... you've said (several times) that the President has that power.. but doesn't one have to be charged, tried and convicted... at least the first.. before he/she can be issued a reprieve or pardon? Obama is simply negating a law for everyone who might be guilty of being here illegally. That's NOT the same as issuing a pardon for an individual.

Again, let us bear in mind that structurally this was NOT an executive order. It was not issued by the White House, but rather by the Department of Homeland Security. It is a directive for field offices.

It could be argued that because the Secretary of Homeland Security reports directly to the President that it amounts to the same thing as an EO. It would be a tough argument to prove in court.

There are bigger fish to fry - notably Fast and Furious and the leaks.

President Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford for federal crimes he would have been charged with had it gone further. What he couldn't pardon Nixon for was being impeached. He would have been impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Ford could not have saved him. Its too bad when the very laws we are supposed to obey yield results we don't like. If we we are a nation of laws then we must take the good with the bad or change the law. I don't think Obama is aware, or even cares what the law says because the Executive the Judicial and the Legislative branches of government have been in defiance of the Constitution since its inception. Too many people have been on the winning side of this defiance to want to change it and you can bet on it that Obama is counting on that majority to put him back in power in November.

zmogus wrote:

I haven't seen a post here about the President ignoring the laws of country concerning his decision not to deport illegal aliens.

zmogus,

What is very scary is, it appears that Americans approve by a 2 to 1 majority to allow the president to enforce his own law regarding immigration policy! See: Poll Shows 2-1 Support of Immigration Policy

“By more than a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor the Obama administration’s new immigration policy, according to a Bloomberg poll released on Tuesday.”

But Article VI of our Constitution states This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land … The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

Our wise founding fathers intended by these words to insure a system of government requiring consent of the governed, which includes our Constitution’s amendment process that allows for change and the granting of new powers to those we elect, but only with consent of the governed as outlined in Article V and requires consent by the “Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.”

Keep in mind that our president has recently acknowledged he has no power to ignore laws of the United States passed by Congress and set his own public policy as applied to aliens, because Article 1,Section 1 of our Constitution commands that: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Obama’s confirmation of this fact is documented in Obama: 'I need a dance partner' on immigration reform

"The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions," Obama told the National Council of La Raza…. Obama defended his administration's approach to deportations "I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. That doesn't mean I don't know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause. I share your concerns and I understand them," he said Monday. "We work every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane possible way."

And in spite of knowing and publicly acknowledging he “swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books”, Obama has chosen to engage in a despotic act of setting his own public policy regarding aliens which defies and runs counter to the “Laws of the United States” passed by Congress which are the “supreme Law of the Land“! In so doing, Obama has not only proposed to engaged in an act of tyranny, but is asking every public servant in his Administration who took an oath to support our Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, to join him in his act of tyranny by enforcing his personal ambitions regarding aliens.

And so, Obama’s actions prompts a very important question. Will our public servants be loyal to Obama’s tyranny and enforce his arbitrary decree, or will they be loyal to the American People and the oath of office which they took to support and defend our Constitution?

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

John W K: Again this points out Obama's ignorance of the Constitution. Without a teleprompter he is a ventriloquist dummy. People like George Soros have their hand in his back and Obama is mouthing their words. Someone has undoubtedly told him he has the power to do what he did but forgot to tell him how so he could reiterate it to the public. The why we already know, to get votes. He could have done this the day he took the oath of office but he had other fish to fry and he didn't need it until now to insure his reelection. The timing is impecable. The next stroke at the very end of the campaign will be a big push to tell folks that the Republicans will take away their entitlements and give them little time to convince the people they won't. It will be a lie because the Republicans know that is exactly what needs to be done to get the country back on track but a re afraid to say. it. Look for more forgiveness of student loans and home mortgages defaults.

pmconusa,

I am rather astonish in regard to your post in which you cite that part of our Constitution which states the President shall have power ”…to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.", and went on to write:

Surely you must know the power you mention extends to “reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States”, which may have been committed and individuals are guilty of. But the authority granted, contrary to your suggestion, is not intended to, nor does it allow, the president to amend or alter the Laws of the United States which define the criminal act and are within Congress’ exclusive legislative powers!

While the president may grant a reprieve or pardon to a 30 year and younger “child”, he remains without power to amend the laws of the united States and grant them a work permit unless Congress amends the law in such a manner to allow the work permits in question.

And so, the big question remains: Will our public servants be loyal to Obama’s tyranny and enforce his arbitrary decree, or will they be loyal to the American People and the oath of office which they took to support and defend our Constitution?

JWK

"Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected."___ Obama, June, 2011

John W K: Illegal immigrants into this country have violated federal law. The President's pardon and reprieve power extends only to those who have or could be charged for offenses against federal law which means all of those individuals who are in this country illegally. This power is absolute and is above question by the legislature and the judiciary. The only issue you can raise is the prudence used in exercising it and if you can convince the President he was wrong in being so lenient he might recind it, but I have my doubts you will be successful. Having said that, he has done what he has done legally and you may punish him by throwing him out of office but the deed will have been done and cannot be undone. Obama, in fact the great majority of politicians, are what you get when you vote for someone who promises more than to defend you life your liberty and your property. There never has been a free lunch except when you give up your freedom in exchange.

pmconusa wrote:

pmconusa,
I’m not sure what your point is with regard to what I wrote. The irrefutable fact is, although the president’s power to issue “reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States” is absolute and beyond question by the legislature or judiciary, the power is extremely limited.

A “reprieve” is a withdrawal of a sentence for an interval of time, which operates in delay of execution.

A “pardon” is an act which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment which the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.

The power of the president to grant a reprieve or pardon does not include an authority to alter or amend Laws of the United States which define a criminal act, nor does the President’s power involve an authority to alter the rules of naturalization ___ both of which are within the exclusive province of Congress’ legislative powers!

And what does the President’s recent executive order propose? Obama’s recent executive order goes further than granting a reprieve or pardon. Obama assumes a legislative power to enact law granting work permits to children, 30 years old and younger, of aliens who have entered our country in violation of the laws of the united States, and as such, is beyond the president’s powers vested by our Constitution!

And so, Obama’s actions prompts a very important question. Will our public servants be loyal to Obama’s assumption of power and enforce his arbitrary decree, or will they be loyal to the American People and the oath of office which they took to support and defend our Constitution?

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Interesting look at this issue in Today's BDN Editorial Page from Krauthammer:

"Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes, and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no fine, no penalty, no sanction whatsoever. (Analogy first suggested by law professor John Yoo.)"

It's a very well-written editorial.

Worth repeating:

As Obama himself argued in rejecting the executive action he has now undertaken, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about it.”

Except, apparently, when violating that solemn obligation serves his re-election needs.

John W K: I suggest a vist to the government site on Naturalization. There you will find the rules established by the department for the issuance of work permits which are the first step in naturalization. When you read through it you will find the department has made the rules such that they can bypass every one of them if it is in the "national Interest". And you realize of course they also get to make that determination, not the Congress.

Over time we have become the pawns of lawyers and ankers giving credence to the statement, "he who has the gold makes the rules". The corrollary of course is he who makes the rules gets the gold.

Rep. Pingree sides with Obama and lawlessness.

Pingree praises Obama decision on immigration
June 15, 2012

Administration will not prosecute young people brought to the U.S. as children

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree praised President Obama’s announcement today that the government will stop prosecuting young people brought to the United States as children, even if they entered the country illegally.

“It's not right to punish children who've done nothing wrong because you don’t like what their parents did,” Pingree said. “The President’s announcement means hundreds of thousands of young people will no longer have to live in fear and they will be able to keep contributing to the country they love.”

The President’s announcement puts into place some of the provisions of the DREAM Act, which Pingree cosponsored. The policy announced today applies to anyone who arrived in this country before they turned 16, are currently 30 or younger and have lived in the United States for at least 5 years. Under the policy those immigrants will be allowed to get a work permit and will not face deportation.

It’s not just about where you were born that makes you American. It’s about how you live your life and what you do in the only country you've always loved and called home, too,” Pingree said. “If Congress isn’t going to act and make this common sense reform, I’m glad the President has stepped up to the plate and put this policy into effect.”

http://pingree.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=820&I...