Obama's actions lawful, top legal scholars say-

Actually word has it that one of Obama's first acts was the day after the election.
He met with Al Sharpton and a Ferguson Protest group.
Talk about Unpresidential.Talk about being a Community Activist.

 

Which is of course the Great Irony.Obama was chosen exactly for that reason.
To be Mr.Cool.Go out and eloquently talk reasonable and assure the people
of good intentions.Flat out con artist.But it worked like a lucky charm.

 

I meant it when I said they are hard working, law abiding for the most part. Also was not a point - coming out of the shadows they'll be a much bigger drain on the US economy. Much bigger. That's not to mention, they are illegal aliens and not supposed to be rewarded.

 

Taking care of HIS people was always a priority. Not really taking care, but appearing to take care. Aren't blacks as a group prospering the least under Obama? I believe so.

 

Maybe you wouldn't be debating what Obama said if someone would actually produce a quote of what he actually said in 2011.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...s-ghost-haunts-GOP-on-immigration-and-torture


Name an issue, foreign or domestic, and Republicans will turn to the holy ghost of Ronald Reagan for wisdom and guidance. But for two of the biggest controversies in the news this week—immigration and torture—conservatives won't like the answer they get when they ask, "What would Reagan do?" After all, President Reagan didn't just sign an amnesty bill for three million undocumented immigrants in 1986. He then acted unilaterally to keep thousands of immigrant families together by using the exact same executive authority President Obama will turn to on Thursday night. And when it comes to the ongoing national shame that is the Bush administration's regime of detainee torture, it was Reagan who in 1988 signed the Convention Against Torture that not only codified waterboarding as a crime, but demanded that the United States prosecute those who ordered and perpetrated it.
As Foreign Policy and many other outlets have documented, the Obama administration and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein are battling over the final, declassified version of the long-overdue Senate torture report. But while that confrontation continues in Washington over that purportedly scathing assessment, last week in Geneva the United States made a very matter of fact admission that it had, in fact, committed torture. As the New York Times reported:

In a two-day presentation in Geneva, the American delegation acknowledged that the United States had tortured terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11 attacks. It emphasized, however, that the government had since tightened its rules, including with a 2005 statute against using cruelty and a 2009 executive order by President Obama that limits interrogators to a list of techniques in an Army field manual.
During the required quadrennial review by the UN panel monitoring international compliance with the Convention Against Torture, Committee expert Alessio Bruni asked Assistant Secretary of State Tom Malinowski "if the delegation could give an example of prosecution of public official violating this legal provision, which is contained in section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act."
Please read below the fold for more on this story.

Ronald Reagan would have asked the same question. In his May 20, 1988 signing statement on the Convention Against Torture, Reagan noted that it "marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment." As the Gipper explained in his message to the Senate:

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
To put it another way, American and international law doesn't give Barack Obama the choice to decide whether "to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" when it comes to torture practiced by the United States. As Marjorie Cohn detailed in October 2012, the United States has "a legal duty to prosecute torturers":
The US has a legal duty to prosecute those responsible for torture and abuse, or extradite them to countries where they will be prosecuted. When we ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Torture Convention), we promised to prosecute or extradite those who commit, or are complicit in the commission, of torture. The Geneva Conventions also mandate that we prosecute or extradite those who commit, or are complicit in the commission of, torture.
As Scott Horton pointed out, that's especially the case when the perpetrators proudly confessed to the crime, as Dick Cheney and George W. Bush did repeatedly.
But while the president does not enjoy "prosecutorial discretion" in complying with the nation's treaty agreements on torture, immigration enforcement is another matter.

As Greg Sargent explained in the Washington Post:

Immigration statute empowers the president to deploy a specific tool--known as "deferred action"--to shield people from deportations, and courts have recognized executive authority to apply it to whole categories of people.
Well before the Obama presidency, Congress enshrined in statute the tools to institute such enforcement priorities. One tool is called "deferred action," and this includes work authorization. This status is merely a temporary reprieve (more on this later) and does not make the path to eventual legal status any more assured.

As the National Journal has documented, virtually every president since FDR has availed himself of deferred action to enable millions of Mexicans, Europeans, Vietnamese, Cubans, Haitians and countless other nationalities to remain in the United States without fear of deportation. Among them was President Ronald Reagan, who repeatedly used his executive authority as President Obama seeks to do now.
After the passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act which provided "amnesty to more than 3 million immigrants who had come here illegally but had been working in the country since at least 1982," President Reagan still faced a quandary. "The new law did not address the fate of the spouses and children of those to whom it gave a path to legalization," Jay Bookman recounted. "A father or mother who had been legalized through IRCA still faced the very real prospect of seeing their spouses and children taken from them and deported."

After Congress made sporadic and unsuccessful efforts to address what became known as the "family unity" issue, Reagan decided to act on his own. Citing his executive authority, he issued "Family Fairness Guidelines" in 1987 that ordered immigration enforcement officials to cease deporting children who were here illegally as long as both their parents--or one parent in a single-parent household--had qualified for amnesty.
That wasn't the only time The Gipper exercised his executive authority to defer action on immigration enforcement. As Erwin Chemerinsky and Samuel Kleiner detailed in the New Republic:
In 1987, the Reagan administration took executive action to limit deportations for 200,000 Nicaraguan exiles, even those who had been turned down for asylum.
Of course, Republicans don't call Ronald Reagan an "emperor" or a "monarch" for having done pretty much what Barack Obama is about to do now. That's why the GOP and its conservative allies aren't invoking the spirit of Ronald Reagan right now. They know exactly what Reagan would do.





It was perfectly legal under Reagan so that it should be equally legal today.

Let's see a ringing endorsement from the forum right wingers.

 

Or maybe he could look it up himself. It's not like it's a secret.

 

And this may come as a shock to you, but screaming "We won! We won!" over and over...

doesn't answer the question of "Okay, Obama has made his changes to immigration, WHAT EXACTLY does this newly victorious Republican Congress plan on DOING about it?"

Great...you "won"....now what are you going to DO after your major victory? Or didn't you plan that far ahead?

- - - Updated - - -

Question-- "What wil lthe Republicans in Congress actually DO to 'stop Obama'?"

Rightwing Answer-- "Obama sucks. I hate Obama!"



- - - Updated - - -

According to Rightwing Media, Obama SPECIFICALLY said in 2011...that what he did last night was "un-Constitutional."

Well...not in so many words....sort of.....if you look at it the right way....he was 'paraphrasing'....not specifically, but close enough!


- - - Updated - - -

Seems to be a secret....nobody on the Right actually quotes it and compares it to what the President said last night.

 

These same beard strokers will be emitting blood curdling screams if a future righty prez ever points to precedent
to begin unilaterally reforming the myriad hallowed Democrat vote buying institutions.

can't wait!!

 

I'm not on the right. I'm as far from the right as you can get.

I also work in immigration. What he announced last night was exactly what he said he didn't have the authority to do in 2011.

The people who should be upset are the families of those deported in the past 2.5 years because the president said he didn't have the authority to stop their deportation, when apparently he did all along.

 

Fair enough...but can you please QUOTE what the President said in 2011....and see if it directly contradicts what he proposed last night, also with a QUOTE?

 

He can impact the deportation rules, but he cannot change the requirements for citizenship. THAT is for Congress to legislate, only.

 

Obama cant make changes to immigration laws.

Hes only made himself look like a bigger chump than before.

 

I'm not interested in doing so.

 

[video=youtube_share;PpO5vqJ6NMs]http://youtu.be/PpO5vqJ6NMs[/video]

 

I lost count after POTUS said this 15 different times at various locations and audiences. POTUS Obama needs to be shut down. What is insane is that both parties along with independents are not getting together to stomp him into dust.

The man child needs to go.

 

Black Poor have never been Poorer.And the Black Elites,like professional
athletes and Rappers,never Richer.
I believe Unemployment in a certain black demographic is an all time
high.it might be among Young black men in the inner city { Over 50% }

 

maybe lawful but very very stupid. He should have called Bill Clinton in for advice after Nov 4, instead he seems to have made a phone call to Bernie Sanders

 

Oh what a Relieve IT is. - Alka Seltzer.
Than k goodness that last Night's performance was just a dress rehearsal { " Proposed " }
Fer a sec. I thought the guy { Obama } was gonna do what he " proposed ".
Thanks for clearing all this up.
Obama was just making a proposal last night.
Kinda like what Popeye tells Olive Oyl every first Tuesday of the month.

 

WTF indeed! Show me where the president has the authority to grant quasi citizenship (with green cards, work permits, etc) to illegal immigrants directly in opposition to federal immigration law. Only a Harvard law professor would claim his favorite president has the authority to invent federal law..
His credibility is forever gone.

 

Obama is a constitutional senior lecturer! He taught about the Constitution and he, himself, said that it would be overreaching his power!! Don't you think he should know? As someone said, you can always find someone who will agree with what you want to do, but it doesn't make them right either. Obviously these Liberals are grasping at straws to find something legal in what he did. I say, let the Supreme Court figure it out, because we know that Libs aren't big on the Constitution or defending it against tyranny.

 

This is correct.Yes a President as part of the Execute Branch does execute
or enforce law.Whereas Congress writes then makes law.An Executive order
is a tool for the Presidency.it has to be executed Federally { all states }.
However " Major Policy Initiatives " will require approval by Congress,
which is the legislative branch.
The President does not make Law.Deciding who are and who are not
citizens is not within the purview of a President.Any President.

 

An Execute Order MUST find support in the Constitution.Either thru a clause
granting the President SPECIFIC power or by a delegation of power by
Congress to the president.
Butthead Bigot Bob Beckle { loathes anyone not a Big Democrat } tried to state that
a Pardon is what Obama is doing.Pardoning a small group of Illegals.
Pardons as we all know are a Presidential power.

 

1. I have not done legal research into this issue.
2. Discount anything that comes from any other top ten law school than Chicago (or NYU or wherever Richard Epstein is) about whether the government can legally do anything. Discount especially anything that comes out of Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Berkeley. Intellectual integrity at those places is 0 or even negative.
3. Discount anything that comes from ANY constitutional law department of ANY US law school regardless, unless it comes from a man named Richard Epstein, or a very few other honest scholars like him.
4. In all likelihood, without specific research, and in light of illicit expansion of the Executive Branch in the 20th century to date, what the President announced last night is "legal" by way of poor, activist 20th century SCOTUS jurisprudence.
5. I'm not alarmed or outraged at all by the President's order, it's like a raindrop in a storm of such that has been going on for nearly 100 years now. My outrage wore off a long time ago. Our Executive Branch has grown into an illicit monstrosity and the people don't care apparently because deep down most of them prefer a king to personal sovereignty.

 

The mere fact that the Democrats have to defend the legality of Obama's actions with "talking points" speaks loudly.

The Department of Injustice is vetting its own actions? Color me surprised! (Not).

He's not supposed to consult with legal scholars and lawyers.

He's supposed to consult with the Congress and the Senate.

Jeff Sessions is a judge and a true legal scholar.

As distinct from Barry, whose constitutional scholarship amounts to a grand total of one semester as a teacher's aide.

Barry is a charlatan. He's not even smart enough to know what he's doing is extraordinarily destructive.

Mr. Obama is the Liar-in-Chief. That much is abundantly clear by now.