# Executive Authority in Prosecutorial Discretion



## Brill (Nov 20, 2014)

Some interesting reading as we transitioned to a monarchy...in the span of 10 minutes that the MSM wouldn't broadcast.

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/conference/ILR13_CBRebeccaKrauss.pdf

http://www2.law.mercer.edu/lawreview/getfile.cfm?file=48312.pdf

I think the GOP will take on the battle cry "We'll see ya in court!"


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 21, 2014)

It should be relatively easy to add this over-reach of power onto the existing lawsuit for over reach of powers on the Obamacare delay.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 21, 2014)

We became a monarchy? I wasn't aware that the little Obama kids were in line for the throne. Here I thought that in just 2 years POTUS would be someone completely new. And elected..? Maybe I'm just on crack.


----------



## Scotth (Nov 21, 2014)

I will be surprised if the case doesn't get dismissed outright.  At least the major points of the lawsuit but nobody has seen the actual lawsuit.

Implementation of laws falls to the executive branch. 

I think the court is going to say it's a political fight and not something for us to get involved in.

If you want something else done for O-care pass a law.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 21, 2014)

It would be nice if we could fix the VA first before jumping head long into spending billions of dollars to fix and document illegal immigrants.

And FWIW, from my measly knowledge of fixing things, I learned long ago, when you have a leaky faucet, before you do anything else, you have to shut off the water supply before you attempt to fix it. Otherwise, you'll have a mess. You could probably apply the same to immigration reform. Turn off the supply and secure that first, then take care of addressing the leak.

Then again, what do I know?


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> We became a monarchy? I wasn't aware that the little Obama kids were in line for the throne. Here I thought that in just 2 years POTUS would be someone completely new. And elected..? Maybe I'm just on crack.



I believe @lindy was referencing this article by Sen. Ted Cruz

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ama-is-not-a-monarch-113028.html#.VG-ui_nF_wo


----------



## Centermass (Nov 21, 2014)

Besides him (POTUS) ticking off the obvious, I would think that the majority of those who immigrated here legally and gained citizenship by paying their dues and enduring the process, are as well. 

And understandably as well.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 21, 2014)

I don't understand the point of this? We get to elect a new President in 2 years.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 21, 2014)

This forces the Republican party to act. The EO will be in effect for three years. After that it goes away. Obama is taking action while not making a long the complete overhaul. Its very Obama like,


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 21, 2014)

From the Cruz article:


> President Obama will no doubt threaten a shutdown—that seems to be the one card he repeatedly plays


:-/


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 21, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> From the Cruz article:
> 
> :-/



Selective memory.


----------



## Brill (Nov 21, 2014)

Monarchy:

1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.
2. supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.

"The report then featured a February 2013 clip of the President admitting, "I'm the President of the United States. I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."

"On January 31, 2013, he talked to Univision and said, "I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...ck-abc-grills-obama-executive-order-flip-flop

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sing-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/

If one says it is X because it is not Y, but then later it turns out that it is in fact Y, would that not mean that it was never X?:wall:

If you don't like my posts, pass a bill (with Benjamin Franklin on the front to my paypal account).   I don't mind if you agree but I do enjoy a spirited debate.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 21, 2014)

lindy said:


> Monarchy:
> 
> 1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.
> 2. supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.
> ...



So executive orders =monarchy? Slippery slope there, I am 100% sure I can find hundreds of examples of a dozen of other presidents taking executive action.

Some estimates range to 50,000 executive orders....http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 21, 2014)

I am personally against this latest one though, don't get me wrong, but I would prefer to see the actual legality of it than call us a monarchy or saying POTUS is acting all king like. I think that is a pretty lame argument


----------



## Brill (Nov 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> So executive orders =monarchy? Slippery slope there, I am 100% sure I can find hundreds of examples of a dozen of other presidents taking executive action.
> 
> Some estimates range to 50,000 executive orders....http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php



No, just the EOs that instruct Federal agencies to disregard laws. Where's the oversight?

Big O instructs an agency, with consent of a federal court and notifies Congress, to conduct bulk data collection and the citizens go ape shit.

For the record, POTUS said his new law won't apply to criminals, gang members, or terrorists. Uh, were they allowed to stay here PREVIOUSLY?

As mentioned, this will be interesting to follow and demonstrates just how brilliant the founding fathers were in that our disagreements are settled in a court of law and respected.  In Burkino Faso, the MO is decree, coup, and further decree (with foreign intervention mixed in to keep things lively).


----------



## Brill (Nov 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I am personally against this latest one though, don't get me wrong, but I would prefer to see the actual legality of it than call us a monarchy or saying POTUS is acting all king like. I think that is a pretty lame argument



100% agree except for the gimp ref. A torn calf hurts you know!


----------



## compforce (Nov 21, 2014)

I read this one line zinger somewhere...   What if the next Republican POTUS decides not to prosecute the Clean Air Act?  How would the democrats feel about it?  It's a slippery slope when the President steps far over the line that has been previously drawn.

Actually, I kinda like the way this has gone down.  He's requiring them to come forward and say that they entered the country illegally AND REGISTER as such.  What if the next president then rescinds the order and we suddenly have a list of all the illegals and can round them up and deport them.  *Poof* 5 Million (nearly half) of our illegal population is gone.

I know it will never actually get there, the next step is for them to say "Oh, the poor formerly undocumented families...the children need healthcare...think of the children" and they take another giant step towards citizenship.  Then it will be "Oh the poor families, they can't survive on the wages they are making, they need food stamps...think of the children".  Then it will be "Oh the poor families, we need to raise the minimum wage so they can survive...think of the poor children".  The democrat goal is to have them all eligible to vote by 2016 or 2020 if Hillary wins.

I wonder if the inner city mobs realize that this drops 5 million more people at the bottom end of the labor pool.  If someone thinks they are trapped among the poor now, just wait until this new labor force hits.

It's not just the poor either.  He also deliberately recruits immigrant STEM workers (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).  He says that there is a shortage of these workers in the US.  The fact is that only about 25% of recent graduates in these disciplines are employed in a STEM field.  (edited to correct the number and cite my source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-130.html#)



> Providing portable work authorization for high-skilled workers awaiting LPR status and their spouses.  Under the current system, employees with approved LPR applications often wait many years for their visa to become available.  DHS will make regulatory changes to allow these workers to move or change jobs more easily.  DHS is finalizing new rules to give certain H-1B spouses employment authorization as long as the H-1B spouse has an approved LPR application.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...t-immigration-accountability-executive-action

Here's an article on the STEM fallacy:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/15/stem-graduates-cant-find-jobs

All I have to say is that the Boy Scout motto is a good rule to follow about now.  It's about to be a bumpy ride.


----------



## Brill (Nov 21, 2014)

compforce said:


> What if the next president then rescinds the order and we suddenly have a list of all the illegals and can round them up and deport them.  *Poof* 5 Million (nearly half) of our illegal population is gone.



Or in the summer, EO grants amnesty...and *poof* 5 million new registered Democrats!

There was a talking head last night that claimed that had POTUS done this weeks ago, Colorado and Florida would have gone (stayed?) blue.


----------



## compforce (Nov 21, 2014)

lindy said:


> Or in the summer, EO grants amnesty...and *poof* 5 million new registered Democrats!
> 
> There was a talking head last night that claimed that had POTUS done this weeks ago, Colorado and Florida would have gone (stayed?) blue.



Georgia also...

Fortunately EO can't grant true amnesty.  Expect to see a flurry of activity during the Senate's lame duck session.  They'll rewrite a bunch of bills that are sitting on Harry Reid's desk just like they did with the Veteran's Housing Act which is now known as Obamacare.  They'll make "non-substantial changes" and pass them through the Senate then drop em back on the House for reconciliation, forcing the GOP led House to defend why they are not passing those bills.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 21, 2014)

Republicans have been handed a gold-egg laying goose, and they are now planning a Bar-B-Que.

Give the bamster his EO, then pass a law mandating a minimum 10% withholding tax.  Everyone who works gets money taken out.
You can only claim dependents in the US, no 17 kids in Honduras.
1% international money transfer tax

The illegals have to prove they have lived and worked here; awesome, as they will have to show whose identity they stole, those SS taxes go the the ID victims account, and the immigrant stolen id gets posted online, enabling the id fraud victim to sue for any refunds denied by the IRS.

Win-win.


----------



## pardus (Nov 21, 2014)

I'm not even reading any of these articles, and I laugh at the ignorance of Americans when it comes to monarchy and the presidency and the powers held by both. I will tell you all now, unequivocally, that the POTUS has immensely more power and authority than Queen Elizabeth (for example) does.  



Centermass said:


> It would be nice if we could fix the VA first before jumping head long into spending billions of dollars to fix and document illegal immigrants.
> 
> *And FWIW, from my measly knowledge of fixing things, I learned long ago, when you have a leaky faucet, before you do anything else, you have to shut off the water supply before you attempt to fix it. Otherwise, you'll have a mess. You could probably apply the same to immigration reform. Turn off the supply and secure that first, then take care of addressing the leak.*
> 
> Then again, what do I know?



The basic tenents of COIN.



Centermass said:


> Besides him (POTUS) ticking off the obvious, I would think that the majority of those who immigrated here legally and gained citizenship by paying their dues and enduring the process, are as well.
> 
> And understandably as well.



If those illegals are let in on a free ride then I want my money back for the years of shit I had to endure. The federal govt owes me tens of thousands of dollars, or I'll jihad their ass's.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 21, 2014)

pardus said:


> If those illegals are let in on a free ride then I want my money back for the years of shit I had to endure. The federal govt owes me tens of thousands of dollars, or I'll jihad their ass's.



I was actually having this exact thought on the way in to work this morning - if those who've stood in line, paid the fees, jumped through the hoops, taken the time off work, et al. would have a basis for a class-action suit for following the rules set forth by DHS and State.  It's a LONG shot (read: pretty much a pipe dream), but I think on a moral basis there's a lot of merit in what you've said - we're going to charge and harass those who do things the right way, but give free pass (literally) to those who think they're above the rest?


----------



## pardus (Nov 21, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> I was actually having this exact thought on the way in to work this morning - if those who've stood in line, paid the fees, jumped through the hoops, taken the time off work, et al. would have a basis for a class-action suit for following the rules set forth by DHS and State.  It's a LONG shot (read: pretty much a pipe dream), but I think on a moral basis there's a lot of merit in what you've said - we're going to charge and harass those who do things the right way, but give free pass (literally) to those who think they're above the rest?



I will forever long for the day that I can beat to death with my bare hands, the INS/CIS cunt that laughed in my face and made me actually beg, for a visa to visit my dying father. 

I will NEVER forget or forgive that!


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 21, 2014)

I don't agree with what is going on?


----------



## Centermass (Nov 21, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't agree with what is going on?



All right Marine. Are you:

1. Asking a question?

2. Making a statement?

3. Unsure how to structure your sentence?

4. Keeping all of us in suspense with an ambiguous post?


----------



## pardus (Nov 21, 2014)

Centermass said:


> All right Marine. Are you:
> 
> 1. Asking a question?
> 
> ...



Be gentle, as a Marine, speaking, let alone reading comprehension, is a huge step in their evolution..


----------



## Scotth (Nov 21, 2014)

lindy said:


> No, just the EOs that instruct Federal agencies to disregard laws. Where's the oversight?
> 
> Big O instructs an agency, with consent of a federal court and notifies Congress, to conduct bulk data collection and the citizens go ape shit.
> 
> ...



All the data collection started long before Obama came into office.  Blame Obama for not ending it if you must.  But over the next two years the Republican controlled congress is going to do nothing about the programs they created.  What will be interesting is what Rand does in the lead up to 2016 about the NSA.  Who does he play to the Libertarian's or the national defense hardline Republicans?

It's not a law, it's an Executive Order and it's easy to implement and just as easy to revoke by the next President.

You know that Obama is trolling conservatives right now?  He is egging them on to sue him, fight him, impeach him or even more importantly to actually come up with a new immigration law after three decades of whining about it and doing nothing.

Obama pretty much copied Bush Sr action in '90.  The Senate passed a Family Fairness act in '89 by a margin of 81-17.  The House wouldn't act so Bush Sr wrote an EO that protected 40% of the illegals at the time.  It's funny that Obama did the same thing and the same percentage.


> In July 1989, the Senate moved to protect a bigger group—all spouses and children of those who legalized under IRCA. The Senate passed legislation 81-17 that prohibited the administration from deporting family members of immigrants in the process of legalizing and directed officials to grant them work authorization. The House failed to act on the Senate’s bill.
> 
> George Bush Sr. then responded in February 1990 by administratively implementing the Senate bill’s provisions himself. As Bush’s INS Commissioner, Gene McNary, stated: “It is vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry.  However, we can enforce the law humanely.  To split families encourages further violations of the law as they reunite.” Under Bush’s “family fairness” policy, applicants had to meet certain criteria, and reapply to the INS every year for extensions.
> The Bush administration anticipated its family fairness program could help enormous numbers of immigrants—up to 1.5 million family members, which amounted to over 40 percent of the 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. at the time.



http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...an-and-ghw-bush-took-bold-executive-action-on

It wasn't a mistake that the Republicans filed their lawsuit after Obama announced his immigration EO and it wasn't included in the lawsuit.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 22, 2014)

What part of securing our borders first, then deal with immigration do you not understand Scott? 

As for your defense of your beloved, sure, he can make an EO. But you know what's shady? The timing of it, and how he's going about it. Wouldn't do it before the elections for fear of getting hammered at the polls. And when he got hammered at the polls and his ass handed to him, he knew he couldn't wait until the new congress was sworn in and winds up pulling this.   

He needs to be more worried about Gruber and all the 30,000 lost Lois Lerner e mails just recovered. I hope his pucker factor just multiplied 10 fold.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 30, 2014)

Centermass said:


> All right Marine. Are you:
> 
> 1. Asking a question?
> 
> ...



What exactly is the President trying to do?


----------



## Scotth (Nov 30, 2014)

Centermass said:


> What part of securing our borders first, then deal with immigration do you not understand Scott?
> 
> As for your defense of your beloved, sure, he can make an EO. But you know what's shady? The timing of it, and how he's going about it. Wouldn't do it before the elections for fear of getting hammered at the polls. And when he got hammered at the polls and his ass handed to him, he knew he couldn't wait until the new congress was sworn in and winds up pulling this.
> 
> He needs to be more worried about Gruber and all the 30,000 lost Lois Lerner e mails just recovered. I hope his pucker factor just multiplied 10 fold.



What part of requiring 700 more miles of fencing and doubling the size of Border Portal agents on the southern border were you opposed to, which the Senate immigration bill included?  Do you think your going to get a better deal from a Republican Senate?  You think we are going to get 800 miles of fence and triple the agents?  What happened the last time Republican's controlled congress and immigration came up?  Nothing was the result because they couldn't agree amongst themselves.  You think that has improved?

You better hope Republicans win back the WH in 2016 or all those illegals protected by the EO will get to become citizens and vote by the time 2020 rolls around.  Unlike the Senate bill which had a 13 years track with many milestones to be accomplished.

When did getting half of what you wanted less appealing then doing nothing?


----------



## Scotth (Nov 30, 2014)

I didn't meet the edit time window so I will finish here.

You're right on why he delayed his announcement on the EO until after the election.  The timing after that doesn't matter.  He can implement his EO just as easily with the Senate in control by the Democrats as the Republicans.  The Republicans can try to block him, good luck getting passed the filibuster and veto.  Shut down the government if your think that is a winning strategy.

Good luck if you think Gruber is going to get O-care taken down.  The SCOTUS is your only real hope.  Even if the SCOTUS does what you hope for, what do you think will happen then?  Your side will have broken the government and didn't fix it when you had the chance.  You will have taken health insurance away from millions driving up the number of uninsured in the country which will be used against Republicans in 2016.  You drive millions with pre-existing conditions to become uninsurable and million of college kids get kicked off their parents plans.  How are you going to fix that with out the revenue O-care creates?  More unpaid expansions of social welfare programs?  We get the national debt to absorb the additional costs of keeping all the good things?

As a professional email administrator, I will bet you a very nice steak dinner, the next time your traveling through Minnesota, that nothing new will turn up in Lois's emails that haven't been already uncovered.  You know the IRS has already handed over long ago more than 24,000 Lerner email related to the investigation.  Nothing that hasn't already been recreated will show up.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 1, 2014)

Scotth said:


> You better hope Republicans win back the WH in 2016 or all those illegals protected by the EO will get to become citizens and vote by the time 2020 rolls around.



Which is EXACTLY what this is all about.

In 1:31, sums up perfectly what is wrong to begin with and where it originates. Let's say one thing and do another...






Video's a bitch, isn't it.....especially when your true character is unveiled because of it.


----------



## Brill (Dec 1, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Which is EXACTLY what this is all about.
> 
> In 1:31, sums up perfectly what is wrong to begin with and where it originates. Let's say one thing and do another...
> 
> Video's a bitch, isn't it.....especially when your true character is unveiled because of it.



He was completely misquoted and all those thoughts were taken out of context.  The video is Republican racist misdirection designed to distract voters from the real problems of a broken immigration system that needed to be fixed...  right after the Democrats lost control of the Senate.


----------



## JBS (Dec 4, 2014)

President Obama's activities definitely resemble the same types of cues that make life under other forms of tyranny so reprehensible.

He doesn't wear a crown or carry a sceptre, but he definitely effects large swathes of the economy, the military, and society... just as if he were a monarch or a dictator or autocrat.  Sure, he's an elected official, but there are many oppresive Socialist societies that have had elected autocrats.   I think it's that he blatantly bypasses known limits to the Executive Branch in ways that are not only mirrors of Republican leaders before him, but - predictably- move well beyond what we've seen so far.

I made this case quite vehemently in other posts here long ago.  The reason we care about the little things today- _*the little Constitutional infractions*_- is because tomorrow some future President is going to move the goal post.  And after that, with each successive leader, erosion of the rights and protections of the individual will erode ever further.   With Bush it was detention without due process for American citizen accused of being a terrorist (but not proven in a court of law)- but with Obama it's dropping munitions on them- albeit in foreign soil- without a trial.   The next President will push that even further in ways that today are unthinkable, but tomorrow will become the norm.

The cycle of erosion of citizen rights will not end until we stop supporting the guy in the White House just because he's "our guy".   If you are in the tank for the POTUS, whoever he is, you are worthless as a citizen of- and for- this country, when it comes to politics.   You might as well just fill in all your ballots for the next 20 years and turn them in all at once and cut down the voting lines for everyone else.


----------

