Radical conservative constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley:

People of good faith can clearly disagree on where the line is drawn over the failure to fully enforce federal laws. There is ample room given to a president in setting priorities in the enforcement of laws. A president is not required to enforce all laws equally or dedicate the same resources to every federal program. Even with this ample allowance, however, I believe that President Barack Obama has crossed the constitutional line between discretionary enforcement and defiance of federal law.

Okay, he's actually a liberal. That was some of his testimony before Congress.

More:

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Doctor Fate wrote:Right. So, has President Obama ever determined that the immigration laws he's not enforcing are, in fact, "unconstitutional?"

Presumably, in deciding not to enforce the deportation of people, he is in that instance saying that it is - Unless, of course, we can be clear that deportation is a 'power' that the Executive holds, rather than a literal 'duty'. The executive is at liberty to use or not use it's powers and in that they differ from duties.

How about the employer mandate? What authority within the bill or within the Constitution did he have to change it? His rationale was (paraphrase) "Businesses have asked me to hold off, so I am." How is that in keeping with what Congress passed?

I don't know. You won't tell me which bit of the ACA legislation he is breaching, what wording it is a direct contravention of.

How about the other delays? Can a President take text passed by Congress that says "shall . . . on (fill in the date) . . . " and change it however he wishes? If so, again, what are the limits? How do we know?

Well, it depends on a few things. Is the thing that the Executive 'shall' do itself Constitutional? Does it depend on any action outwith the Executive? But crucially, whether that is what the law actually says. Which I have asked for but that is apparently 'shifting the burden' (I will address that later).

First, I would note with a chuckle that Sec. Sebellius said they were required to launch the website on Oct. 1. That was one of her defenses.

Maybe they were. But does that mean that the law said they were required to put the mandate in place, and is that requirement expressed in the same way, and is that actually what it said (perhaps Sebellius was wrong?)

I'm not going to read the bill to find the dates, but if they were merely set by the Administration (as you hope/imply/wish), there would be no issue when it changed them--after all, they would all be under its purview.

it's not the dates, per se, that are the problem, it is quite simply what the Act says, the Executive 'shall' do, and what it says it will be given the power to do, and what it says other

Nope, that is shifting the burden.

Actually, it is not. You have made an assertion. I am questioning that assertion. If you want that assertion to be regarded on more than face-value, then you have choice of whether to present evidence to back it up, or not. I have merely asked for a very simple way for you to do that. My asking you is not going to prove you 'wrong'. But you failing to answer is going to make me think you don't have the evidence to back your assertion up. It's up to you - we can trade opinions and talking head interview quotes until the cows come home. But as you have pointed out, the actual issue comes down to what the laws say.

Again, it's more than 2000 pages.

True. but of course you don't necessarily have to read them all. I am sure that someone somewhere has actually read them, especially I would hope the people who are making the same assertions that you are, but in Congress or on a national stage. Surely in doing so, one of them must have cited the actual text so that it would be easy to find, and so that their supporters could replay with a reference or the actual text itself to shut up us naysayers?

Maybe you only need to find that.

Congress passed the plan with specific taxes, requirements, and the dates by which each would be collected or must be fulfilled. They gave the HHS Secretary a lot of flexibility, but NOT with regard to dates.

Hmm. I'm not convinced that any law has actually said that an Executive must collect a tax from a certain date. I do, however, expect that laws would give the Executive the power to collect a tax from a certain date (and most assuredly not before that time). Now, there may by other clauses that tie dates to other actions that have to be in place in order to exercise that power, or dependencies the other way. But again, I'd like to see some actual evidence as to which clauses it is that are being breached.

And yet, that is contrary to the current law. Congress looked at the DREAM Act. It failed to pass. So, the President just decided he would do everything he could to implement it. You might agree with him, but it is a thumb in the eye to representative government.

Again, no. The DREAM Act would give some people permanent residency. What the Executive Order did was to stop deportations some of those people who would have been covered by the DREAM Act. However, that is not permanent residency, and as such it could be more easily revoked in the event of, say, criminal action.

Also, and this is a crucial difference with Executive Orders as compared to Acts: a future President can easily nullify an Executive Order. So whoever wins in 2016 (and I am sure you are convinced it will be a Republican of good standing) would be able at a stroke to revoke it, and in doing so that would apply to pre-existing cases. But in order to undo the actual DREAM Act (were it to be passed and be Constitutional) would entail another Act of Congress - and that would have to be retro-active (ie: illegal) to apply to pre-existing cases.

Yes, but technically, being an illegal alien is not a "criminal" charge. It is a civil violation. Deportation is not jail time.

In which case, surely, the Executive has even more leeway. However, deportation is a sanction, a punishment. The Fourth Amendment applies to the extent to which people can have their property or themselves seized or searched, and deportation does rely on seizing the person (NB: it does not confine this right to 'citizens'). If it is a civil violation,as you assert, then the Seventh Amendment applies (the right to jury trial - immigration courts use juries, or are cases determined by a judge?). The Eighth Amendment considers the limits of punishment that the Federal government can apply (and it may then come down to whether you believe is is "cruel and unusual" to deport someone of good standing and in so doing so separate them from their family etc).

That is the OPPOSITE of carrying out his oath of office.

And yet I can't see which actual Executive Orders you are referring to. Care to share the numbers?

I'm not surprised by your response. You probably like "dictator light."[/quote]Actually, it's merely me repeating to you the question I asked of bbauska (and that you responded to). The exchange started off with bbauska declaring that there was a growing problem with the use of EOs. As evidence he linked to an article about putative future EOs. I responded to point out that overall the use of EOs was going down, and Obama was one of the least prolific Presidents for some time, but of course that is simply quantative, and bbauska's point was qualitative, as he pointed out. So I asked which EOs are at issue here. He has not responded, and in all the words you typed out or quoted from others above, I don't see which EOs are the problem.

Again, what stops a Republican from taking office and just doing whatever he/she wants? You seem to really like the ruling by fiat thing. Maybe you prefer a monarchy, but we fought a war against it.

Actually, you didn't.

You fought a war against a constitutional hereditary monarchy, primarily because the constitutional provisions for representative government did not include colonies. On winning independence, you brought about a system of constitutional elected monarchy, with fixed (and later, limited) terms of office. In reality, the powers granted to Presidents were not that far removed from the powers still allowed to Kings of the UK following the Restoration and Glorious Revolution (and later accommodations during the Georgian dynasty).

Of course, since then, we have further limited the monarchy, while your constitution has barely changed, so what we have now is a much weaker head of state (with some vestigial monarchial powers that if ever used would trigger a constitutional crisis - or resolve one), and the power now really resides in the combined legislature and executive that is Parliament.

Personally, I am a small-r republican in that I oppose hereditary monarchy. But I prefer our system in that our head of state is weak and mainly titular, and in that sense is at the same level as the German, Israeli or Irish Presidency in terms of monarchial power - the head of government has the real power, but in all three cases is directly accountable to an elected legislature, rather than being outside of it.

What I don't really like is a strong, unitary, powerful head of state (literally 'monarch') which is what you have in elected monarchies like the USA, France and South American states, or hereditary monarchies like Saudi Arabia or Swaziland.

(yes, that is pedantry, but hey, you are suggesting I like dictatorships, so I figure it's about even)

Hey, if you want to read the ACA, knock yourself out. That would put you one up on almost every Democrat who actually voted for it and the President who signed it and then violated it.

immigration courts use juries, or are cases determined by a judge?

It would be very surprising if they used juries. Certainly there isn't any level of immigration hearing over here that uses a jury. Things are obviously different in the States but I don't really see it being that different. It would clog up the courts horribly, and for no real benefit.

http://www.cato.org/publications/testim ... e-care-act

https://www.tennessean.com/article/2013 ... /312230012

You may believe as you wish.

DF - Will is simply offering more opinion.

Cannon has offered far more on the ACA (interestingly not on the aspect that you have mentioned, postponement of the corporate mandate). Of course, he is co-author of an amicus brief in support of Halbig v Sebelius on the IRS rules relating to taxes for the individual mandate, which is what the article largely concerns, and so he clearly knows what he's talking about and has a definite opinion.

The last court his argument was tested in ruled for the HHS and against the plaintiffs.

Why? Well, the judgement is here: Halbig v Sebelius

And the last paragraphs are pretty clear:

In sum, the Court finds that the plain text of the statute, the statutory structure, and the statutory purpose make clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges. What little relevant legislative history exists further supports this conclusion and certainly — despite plaintiffs' best efforts to suggest otherwise — it does not undermine it. The Court therefore concludes that "Congress has directly spoken to the precise question" of whether an "Exchange" under 26 U.S.C. § 36B includes federally-facilitated Exchanges. [Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. at 842]. And that must be "the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Id. at 842-83. The IRS has done exactly that by promulgating regulations authorizing the provision of tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on federally-facilitated Exchanges as well as to those who purchase insurance on state-run Exchanges.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the IRS Rule is consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of the Affordable Care Act. Section 36B must be read as authorizing the IRS to deliver tax credits to individuals purchasing health insurance on federally-facilitated Exchanges. The Court therefore denies plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants defendants' motion for summary judgment. An Order consistent with this Opinion will issue this same day.

I understand that the plaintiffs are seeking appeal. Until then, it seems that the question is not settled.

Sassenach wrote:

immigration courts use juries, or are cases determined by a judge?

It would be very surprising if they used juries. Certainly there isn't any level of immigration hearing over here that uses a jury. Things are obviously different in the States but I don't really see it being that different. It would clog up the courts horribly, and for no real benefit.

It would indeed be surprising.

immigration Courts are not part of the standard judiciary in the US. They are part of the Justice department.
Hearing are before judges. However:

What's more, the quality of judges and fairness of the courts' decisions have also been called into question: In a 2010 report (pdf), an American Bar Association commission found that deportation cases in immigration courts were "highly dependent upon the judges before whom they appear rather than on the merits of their cases," saying that the lack of judges and resources have resulted in hastily decided, poorly researched and biased decisions.

Moreover the system is horribly screwed up.

Immigrants can be deported summarily without a hearing. But those who do get a court case typically end up in a prolonged legal purgatory: The average immigration court case takes 550 days before a decision is handed down

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -in-court/

Maybe putting a system on hold for some people concerned, that is so expensive, so over burdened and of dubious judicial quality is an executive order that has more to do with common sense than anything else. Good governance isn't just about making laws, its about making laws work to the objective of the law.
Congress often prescribes laws in such excruciating detail that the execution of the law becomes a burdensome beauracratic exercise.....and the objective of the law is lost along the way.
The ACA is actually a pretty good example of a that too.

Immigration cases are decided by judges (part of my firm's work is handling deportation hearings).

danivon wrote:DF - Will is simply offering more opinion.

Cannon has offered far more on the ACA (interestingly not on the aspect that you have mentioned, postponement of the corporate mandate). Of course, he is co-author of an amicus brief in support of Halbig v Sebelius on the IRS rules relating to taxes for the individual mandate, which is what the article largely concerns, and so he clearly knows what he's talking about and has a definite opinion.

The last court his argument was tested in ruled for the HHS and against the plaintiffs.

Why? Well, the judgement is here: Halbig v Sebelius

And the last paragraphs are pretty clear:

In sum, the Court finds that the plain text of the statute, the statutory structure, and the statutory purpose make clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges. What little relevant legislative history exists further supports this conclusion and certainly — despite plaintiffs' best efforts to suggest otherwise — it does not undermine it. The Court therefore concludes that "Congress has directly spoken to the precise question" of whether an "Exchange" under 26 U.S.C. § 36B includes federally-facilitated Exchanges. [Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. at 842]. And that must be "the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Id. at 842-83. The IRS has done exactly that by promulgating regulations authorizing the provision of tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on federally-facilitated Exchanges as well as to those who purchase insurance on state-run Exchanges.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the IRS Rule is consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of the Affordable Care Act. Section 36B must be read as authorizing the IRS to deliver tax credits to individuals purchasing health insurance on federally-facilitated Exchanges. The Court therefore denies plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grants defendants' motion for summary judgment. An Order consistent with this Opinion will issue this same day.

I understand that the plaintiffs are seeking appeal. Until then, it seems that the question is not settled.

I have to say that Court is, with all "due" respect, full of it. The clear wording of the bill is in contradiction to what the Court claimed. It's just shocking that the judge was appointed by Bill Clinton, the man who wanted to debate the meaning of the word "is."

Obama is sure helping Americans by keeping Dreamers in the US!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said on Monday that Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros is being placed in removal proceedings and will be held at a detention center in Tacoma while she awaits a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

"The immigration judge will determine whether or not Ms. Garcia-Cisneros remains in detention for the duration of her immigration case," ICE spokesman Andrew Munoz said in a statement.

Garcia-Cisneros was sentenced to three years of probation and 250 hours of community service on Friday. A jury found the woman guilty of two counts of felony hit-and-run earlier this month.

Prosecutors said the crash on Oct. 20 in Forest Grove, 25 miles west of Portland, was an accident. But they say the teen failed to come forward after learning she might have struck the children in the leaf pile, which was on the street. Police found her the following day.

Authorities said the two girls — later identified as stepsisters, 6-year-old Anna Dieter-Eckerdt and 11-year-old Abigail Robinson — were likely concealed by the leaves and not visible to Garcia-Cisneros.

Anna died at the scene. Abigail died later at a Portland hospital.

Well, except for those killed by them.

What does this prove? You can get this type of story from any sizeable sub-group. Even white middle-aged citizens...probably could find a few recent examples of white middle-aged men in the United States who committed vehicular manslaughter...Take any large group and some number of them will commit crimes...Presumably you would not complain that white middle-aged men kill people...

Accident.

freeman3 wrote:What does this prove? You can get this type of story from any sizeable sub-group. Even white middle-aged citizens...probably could find a few recent examples of white middle-aged men in the United States who committed vehicular manslaughter...Take any large group and some number of them will commit crimes...Presumably you would not complain that white middle-aged men kill people...

Yes, an accident. One that could not have transpired without a Presidential assist.

Doctor Fate wrote:Well, except for those killed by them.

A comment that is beneath you. When you say stuff like that you convince no one, indeed, you make suspect everything you say.