Executive Power

Are We About to See What Obama Can Do When He Doesn't Give a Damn?

|

Obama
White House

Ah, to be unencumbered by worries or responsibilities. It's that feeling of open horizons known by twenty-somethings with an apartment and a first paycheck, by healthy retirees with topped-off 401Ks—and by second-term presidents who have stopped giving a shit about their own political party's prospects. In an era of expanding executive power, President Obama looks like a guy contemplating a world of interesting possibilities. Even his fellow Democrats seem a bit jittery about just what the man in the Oval Office has in mind.

Timothy Cama at The Hill writes, "President Obama's election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous."

So why don't they just tell the president that any such deal is DOA in the Senate? At least until after the election?

Because Coral Davenport at the New York Times suggests that Obama plans to bypass Congress entirely.

[U]nder the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama's climate negotiators are devising what they call a "politically binding" deal that would "name and shame" countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path…

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

By…umm…creatively building off an existing treaty, the president could unilaterally reach for the green-garbed legacy he covets. He would also confirm the fears of everybody who worries about executive overreach and probably torpedo the chances of at least a few Democrats in battleground states where the economic impact of such a deal would be an issue.

The proposal risks putting donkey party candidates in close races "in front of the firing squad," according to a Democratic strategist quoted by Cama.

But how likely is the unilateral strategy? When asked about such a Senate-bypassing scheme, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest coyly answered, "Because that agreement is not written, it's not yet clear exactly what sort of role Congress would be required to play."

President Obama is likely to follow a similar path on immigration issues. Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa at the Washington Post write:

Both political parties are in a state of high anxiety about the possibility that President Obama will allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the country, fearing that White House action on the issue could change the course of November's midterm elections.

In the past few days, Democratic candidates in nearly every closely fought Senate race have criticized the idea of aggressive action by Obama. Some strategists say privately that it would signal that he has written off the Democrats' prospects for retaining control of the chamber, deciding to focus on securing his legacy instead.

The White House isn't even shy on the issue. When asked if Obama might "think twice about taking executive action on immigration," Earnest answered, "No…the President is determined to act where House Republicans won't."

A minority opinion among political strategists is that such a move is actually a clever plan to get GOP nativists foaming at the mouth so they hurt Republican prospects. But as reliably batshit as some Republicans can be on the immigration issue, Democrats are certain to suffer, too, from unilateral action on a controversial issue. And the whole idea of a republic based on limited govement power takes a hit when one person follows the "Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool" approach to ruling a country by fiat.

Note, too, that the wisdom or lack thereof of a unilateral presidential action is irrelevant to the dangers of growing executive power. I would personally agree with some of the president's ideas on easing immigration restrictions. But the problems of a president set free to do as he damned well wishes, on his own, are problems of concentrated power, no matter how it's used.

And President Obama look like he sees a world of interesting possibilities in using that power.

Below, Frank Buckley discusses the rise of American elective monarchy.

Advertisement

NEXT: Fox's Kim Guilfoyle Wants Putin-esque War Leader, Not Civil Liberties

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes. I’ve been saying that for a long time now. And watching The O right now, I think I’ve underestimated just how batshit insane that he will go in his last couple of years. The guy is pissed as hell that everyone doesn’t adore him and he’s going to go all out to punish us all for it.

    1. You know who else punished people from inside the F?hrerbunker ?

      1. Bruno Ganz?

      2. The janitorial staff…if you kept those muddy Feldstiefel on!

      3. Kevin McCallister?

    2. The guy is pissed as hell

      Actually, the latest wingnut talking point is that he is aloof, detached, and doesn’t care any more.

      Try to keep up.

      1. If you’re the one keeping up with the wingnut talking points…

      2. Turd.Burglar.

        1. Or just turd.

      3. Well, the question is which sort of not giving a shit is he practicing. Stay-on-the-golf-course-and-out-of-trouble not giving a shit, or honey badger not giving a shit?

      4. Because pretty much everyone now agrees he’s an incompetent moron…even boneheads on the left.

      5. You gotta love the photo.

    3. I love this description of his global warming treaty initiative:

      a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries

      So Obama is going to sign off on a deal that by design, since he knows full-well that Congress will not approve it, with “name and shame” the US.

      The guy really does hate America. Almost I am persuaded to vote Republican.

      1. It keeps with Limbaugh’s thesis about BHO, that he always wants to be the outsider even when he’s prancing around handing down diktats like a prince.

        He’s not the cornerstone of the (gross) American political establishment–he’s just a helpful outsider who wants to pressure irresponsible politicians into doing the right thing without, you know, negotiating with them politically.

      2. It also sounds to me like a deal that will be meaningless, but symbolic!

        I can only hope that that’s how all of his legacy-seeking moves turn out.

      3. Tell me about it. My choices aren’t all that palatable this year. Still, complete Republican ticket this year. The best we can do is keep them at odds with each other.

      4. What adult and or professional politician uses terms like “name and shame”. This is a childish and feckless policy initiative.I guess it is expected.

    4. Thank goodness a human being wants to stop the sun from heating the earth.

      This guy is so stupid, I’m starting to feel sorry for him and his zombie devotees.

    5. Sebastian . I just agree… Helen `s artlclee is astonishing, I just bought Chevrolet when I got my cheque for $6747 this-last/month and would you believe, ten k last-month . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I actually started 8-months ago and straight away made myself over $78, p/h .
      100% free registration——- http://www.jobsfish.com

  2. The most dangerous phase of most Presidencies is the search for a “legacy”.

    ObamaCare was supposed to be Obama’s legacy, but that ain’t looking so hot, and anyways, he’s got time to squeeze in at least one more.

    Pray for a Republican majority in the Senate. God knows my contempt for the Repubs is vasty and deep, but its the only possible way to stop this President from losing what shreds of restraint and decency he has left.

    1. “I can call TEAM RED Senators from the vasty deep.”

      “Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?”

      1. Kids who don’t have to study Shakespeare anymore miss out on great material for turning allusions into pithy observations.

    2. Everyone needs at least one legacy per term, right? That’s why so much crap comes out of the House.

    3. My favorite part of having a GOP congress & Obama will be all the Deweyites complaining that government isn’t doing its job, as it’s not passing nearly enough legislation.

  3. a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions.

    How many American swing voters would care about this?

    Holy shit – why not just dredge up one of the old fake scandals?

    1. Is there anything Obama could conceivably do that you wouldn’t handwave away?

      1. Just one: change his name to BOOOOOOOOOOSH.

      2. Nope. Barry O could ride him raw like a naughty pony, and shreeeek wouldn’t even ask for Vaseline.

      3. Seriously, who would care if he “named and shamed” some pollution gusher?

        Get a grip.

        1. Well, the political and media classes already name and shame plenty of pollution gushers, so we already know the answer.

          But if this “treaty” is doomed to such failure then why bother stretching the bounds of executive power to achieve it?

          1. For money plain and simple.

        2. Because, according to the report, the design of the deal intends to “name and shame” the US.

          The US is not a pollution gusher. Further, the deal has nothing to do with pollution. It relates to carbon dioxide emissions.

        3. Palin’s Buttplug|8.28.14 @ 12:15PM|#
          “Seriously, who would care”…

          Those of us who aren’t moral cripples, turd.

          1. This is a priceless response. Claiming the moral high ground while calling someone a turd. Only a silly progressive twit could do that. Progressives really are a funny bunch.

        4. Global climate changing warming/cooling rain, snow, ice, drought, wind, evaporation cannot be proven to be caused or influenced by man.

          Does that make your blood boil DB buttplug?

  4. I seem to recall myself posting years ago “just wait until he’s in his second term and doesn’t give a fuck about re-election”. Well, here we go. And there are two more years yet. Fuck. Us. All.

    1. “BWAHAHAHAAA!!”

    2. If the GOP wins the Senate he will have to be careful, though. They’ll let him get away with anything they think their guy can exploit in 2017, but they won’t let him go too far enough.

    3. It would be worse if we were stuck with mittens. Mittens in the effort to do something and look efficient would have struck a devils bargain with and we would ave gotten screwed.

      Obumbles will set the table, and no one will come to dinner.

      1. … devils bargain with Reid …

  5. I’m interested to see how he resolves the immigration issue. If he takes executive action I predict a backlash and a strong showing for Republicans in November. Maybe that’s okay with him, but it may damaged Democrats for several election cycles, hardening anti-immigration reform sentiments with the general public if we see any type of surge across the border. If he fails to take action Hispanics and his base will be pissed. Heads I win; tails he loses.

    1. I’m interested to see how he resolves the immigration issue.

      I predict he will simply kick the can by appointing an Immigration Czar.

      1. He promised Hispanics (in the form of Luis Gutierrez) he’d take action. If he doesn’t, they’re going to be mighty pissed.

        1. Its not like Louis is going to go independent or join TEAM RED…

        2. And yet it will cost him nothing politically since he’s finished with running for office. And they’ll forgive him anyways and support him vigorously when Lizzie Warren nominates him for Chief Justice.

          1. Holy shit. Thanks for the nightmares.

            1. Everyone wishes they knew the future. But once you peer deep into the abyss that awaits us, you will long for ignorance. Why do you think the prophets and oracles of ancient Greek mythology were generally blind? Having seen what the future holds, one does everything to prevent any further glimpses.

          2. So what happened to Roberts in this pre-apocalyptic future of yours, such that his seat was available? He’s young and spry by SCOTUS standards.

            1. Perhaps not Chief justice. But justice nonetheless. And he’ll get the Chiefs seat shortly after Johnny Bobby resigns his office prematurely due to some blackmail that we’ll never be privvy to.

        3. Lady Bertrum|8.28.14 @ 12:10PM|#
          “He promised Hispanics (in the form of Luis Gutierrez) he’d take action. If he doesn’t, they’re going to be mighty pissed.”

          Like the gays were pissed about leaving DADT forever before he finally did something?
          The was the Hispanics and blacks are pissed that their kids are going to jail for a joint?
          The way turd is pissed about him starting a new war?

    2. My home town is taking in 150 immigrant refugees:

      http://onlineathens.com/local-…..r-refugees

      All the poutrage that could be ginned up by conservatives has been. It won’t be an issue.

      Too bad. There is time to wail away on something else for Team Red.

      1. According to various sources, he’s considering giving status to around 5 million illegals.

        So, your position is, other than hard-core anti-immigration conservatives, American’s won’t have a problem with his executive order? Independents and union supporting Dems won’t be the least bit concerned?

        Interesting. Time will tell.

        1. I doubt it. Other than Fox news and talk radio, no one seemed to mind DACA, except the immigration advocates who didn’t think it went far enough.

        2. I’m all for offering status to most of the illegal immigrants already here. I’d say give them three options:

          1. Make yourself known. Pay back taxes and processing fees. Submit to a background check. If you pass all that you get a special visa and a path to a special green card. But you can never, ever become a citizen.

          2. Leave the country and try to come back legally. Then you still have a shot at citizenship.

          3. Do nothing. The few who choose this path will be pursued diligently by our bloated immigration enforcement bureaucracy.

          Combing this with reform to immigration policy that increases the number of available visas ten-fold (at least) and you can fix the problem quickly.

          1. Combine this. Don’t comb it. Never comb it.

          2. Without changing the current law, hardly anyone would go with option 2, because:

            1) If they have been in the United States for a significant period (180+ days or 1 year) they are subject to a 3 or 10 year bar on re-entry.

            2) If they’ve been here illegally (either as a visa overstay or entering without inspection) for over a year, then left (whether voluntarily or deported) and then re-entered, they are subject to a Permanent Bar to re-entry.

            3) In order to come here legally, they either need a specialized skill set or a US Citizen / Permanent Resident relative, and if it’s not an immediate relative, then the wait time is extraordinary (often over a decade.)

            I think most would be happy to opt for 1, though I don’t know why an extended probationary (they’re calling it “provisional” in most of the proposed bill) period before obtaining a normal greencard wouldn’t be appropriate. That way they would have to go through an additional period that normal greencard holders would not, and it would take them longer than the usual 3/5 years that greendcard holders must wait before applying for USC.

          3. Almost all of them will immediately opt for number one. Most Mexican immigrants I’ve met plan on returning some day. They just come here for economic reasons.

          4. I’m all for punishing lawbreakers, but people seem to want to do something above and beyond to lawbreaking immigrants whose only crime is walking on the wrong set of coordinates. Just slap them with a big fine and have done with it.

        3. Why not? Unions are supporting his amnesty plan, which in the long run will decimate American labor. There will be something in it for Unions in the short term.

    3. Why on EARTH would he do this before November 2014? It seems such a needless slaughter of Democrats when he could simply wait until the day after the election to make his big move. I know illegals are getting impatient, but they’ve been waiting for this since the days of Bush at least and telling them to hang in a few more months doesn’t seem like such an onerous request.

      Can anyone explain the timing to me?

      1. I don’t get this, either. It’s sure to be massively unpopular. I’ve seen numerous comments along the lines of “I’m a Democrat, but…” and “My father is a life-long Democrat, and he’s promised he’ll vote Republican for the rest of his life because of this.”

        Partly “comprehensive immigration reform” seems like one of those ginned-up issues, like campaign finance reform: something a few people care about, and they convince the media and the politicians that there’s a groundswell supporting it. In fact, it’s a coalition of Democrats (electing a new people), GOP servants of the Chamber of Commerce, and a few doctrinaire libertarians. The vast majority dislikes mass immigration, and for good reasons.

        But as for Obama, yes, it’s going to hurt him and hurt the country. It really lends weight to the theory that he really wants to take the US down a peg, if not destroy it. Get everyone screaming about the Constitution and the rule of law, adding to unemployment and welfare costs, while turning the country into Guatemala. It’s win-win-win for anyone who doesn’t like the US being rich, successful, and powerful.

        1. I don’t get this, either..

          I think the initial strategy was to float the idea of executive amnesty before the mid-terms to get the Republicans riled up and talking about impeachment. This was supposed to illustrate how crazy the Repubs are to the benefit of Dems, but they didn’t take the bait and kept a lid on the crazy talk. Now, Latinos are taking O at his word and expecting something big before November.

          The consensus among Dems is the short term loss of a few senate seats (which were already in jeopardy) is small potatoes compared to the long term benefits of permanent Latino loyalty.

          1. That seems reasonable. I hear tell over at over websites that Obama will probably delay amnesty by a few weeks because of Ukraine, ISIS, and Hamas — but maybe those are just excuses. Maybe he will wait beyond November. If he’s going to do it no matter what, mid- to late October would be dandy with me.

      2. Maybe he’s trying to slow play it. Make it look like he’s going to do something big, but claim that Republicans are slowing it down and it might not get done until 2015. After that it doesn’t matter. All people need is the hope that he will do something. They don’t need results.

      3. Maybe there is enough democratic rumblings about him that he doesn’t care about them either. There have been stories about donors and members of Congress who are unhappy about his attitude.

        Maybe he just wants to stick it to anyone who isn’t sufficiently deferential.

  6. It just occurred to me that BHO studied constitutional law like a jailhouse lawyer studies criminal law.

    1. I would be really interested to see Mr. Smartest President Ever’s LSAT score.

    2. Or how a criminal studies security systems. He’s a black hat constitutional scholar.

      .
      .
      .

      Ok, I’ll just preemptively call “racist!” on myself.

  7. The reason Obama can do pretty much what he wants is that it’s most of the people in the country who don’t give a damn. Obama gives a damn about his fundamental transformation wet dreams and is busy making them come true.

    The root problem isn’t Obama, it’s the ignorance and passivity of the population that puts someone like him in office and ignores his 110 car unit train of abuses and usurpations while he’s there.

    1. fundamental transformation

      I still get a chuckle out of that one.

      1. He really wants to “be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

        I still get a chuckle out of that one, too.

    2. You can’t talk about the vapidity and decline of Western culture here. You’ll be given the scarlett letter indicating SNOCONZ! sympathies. The neo-McCarthyites won’t abide a snocon.

    3. This, plus hyper partisanship on both sides. Any time he’s called on Constitutional abuse, Fox, WSJ, and talk radio cover it endlessly, while his partisans claim it is “just politics” and a faux scandal created by Republicans — which is repeated by a compliant mainstream media. After the millionth repeat, the passive/cynical public just ignores it or chalks it up to political bickering.

      I’m pretty sure he could go to Capitol Hill with a saber and hack up John Boehner and get away with it at this point.

      1. If he ate a live baby on the White House lawn, he’d still have about 30% support, and Tony and Buttplug would say that Bush was worse.

        1. “But BOOOOOOOSH cooked the baby Obama ate!”

    4. That problem–natural to democratic forms of government–is as old as Lincoln. Maybe older, if you want to count Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion or the Alien and Sedition Acts.

      The population is passive to politicians’ schemes because a political system rooted in voting provides little incentive to learn about government functions & behavior.

      We do it because we’re wonks, but most people correctly intuit that they have much more to gain personally by researching which brand of car or television they’re going to buy next than researching a candidate’s political positions.

      1. I agree, and I think it is resulting in the accelerating disintegration of the whole concept of government checks and balances.

        The founders figured that politicians’ ambitious nature and self-interest would cause them to jealously guard the power of whichever branch to which they belonged. But they underestimated the power of the factional forces opposing this: Congressional members of the President’s party supporting Presidential overreach,) and a media giving the President enough cover to make even bringing up impeachment a grave political mistake for any Congressperson foolhardy enough to contemplate it.

        1. +1

          The framers were brave, great men, but there’s no way they could have foreseen what came after them. The Buckley thesis is right: mass media gives us an elected king in the executive, and we’ve falling behind parliamentary states in personal liberty because the legislature has no ability to constrain the executive.

          1. George Washington left the White House after 8 years largely because he couldn’t stand the partisan bickering between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.

            The Constitution was barely 10 years old when several of the framers voted for, and President Adams signed, a blatantly unconstitutional law explicitly restricting political speech based on content.

            The wheels were coming off the cart very early on. They had spent a lot of energy trying to blunt geographical factionalism, without doing much to counteract the non-geographical sort.

  8. Maybe Obama should just quit worrying about getting stuff done. He’s worked so HARD these last six years, with so little to show for it. Maybe he should just take some time off, and go do something he likes. Maybe a little skeet shooting…

    1. with Cheney?

    2. If you weigh the expense of sending all federal government to Club Med for the duration of their terms/contracts with the damage they do to the economy, I’d wager we’d come out ahead at least 10:1.

  9. Aa the Prez sharpens his climate change pen another instance of climate “scientists” simply changing data to fit their narrative.

    It is truly awe inspiring to see how wide and how entrenched the pro warming movement is, and how determined they are to stick to their narrative as it slowly unravels

    1. Cultists gotta cult.

      1. Climate scientologists.

  10. The only thing Obama has going for him is that he is so profoundly incompetent. Imagine if someone who actually knew what they were doing had achieved the level of shameless cult worship he did. They’d easily be able to pull a Caesar. Fortunately, we have good ol’ childish, stupid Barry.

    1. Maybe Hillary can play Augustus and finish what Barry started.

      1. Lizzy Warren can be Antony and clutch Barry’s bloody toga (Lacoste golf shirt) on the senate floor after he’s knifed.

        Or, maybe Lizzy is Brutus. I’m confused.

        1. “Y tu, Liz-zay?”

      2. I honestly think Hilary is more likely to fall over dead in the next couple years then become President. She is just a completely unlikeable person, even in softball interviews she comes off like an aggressive cunt. If anyone in the Democrats are going to get the ‘First Woman President’ propaganda cred it will be Warren.

        1. Lefties like the idea of Clinton because her last name is Clinton.

          Then she opens her mouth for more than five minutes and they go scrambling for some populist gladhander to run against her.

        2. Warren has too many skeletons, think she honestly wants to keep looting in peace & avoid the minimal scrutiny an election outside Mass would produce.

  11. Shorter Barack Obama: “L’Etat, c’est moi.”

  12. Actually, the latest wingnut talking point is that he is aloof, detached, and doesn’t care any more.

    Maureen Dowd is a wingnut?

    *You’ll have to look it up yourselves, if you dast.

    1. Though I detest the term wingnut, what with its popularity among the shrikes and Ed Schultzes of the world, Dowd’s partisan hackery seems worthy of the title. She merely occupies a different wing than those frightful monsters that roam about shrike’s brain like a moonbounce filled with cobras.

      1. a moonbounce filled with cobras

        Aha! Album name gold!

    2. She is insufficiently pious and therefore a heretic and a heathen. Great Obama must not rest until she is besmoten!

    3. Mo-Do is a bitter Emo-Hag. The far left hates Obama for not being one of them.

  13. BHO studied constitutional law like a jailhouse lawyer studies criminal law.

    “There’s gotta be a loophole in here, somewhere.”

    1. How many divisions does Congress command?
      Who does the Secret Service and the FBI work for?

      That’s all he needs to know.

      Well, that and the certain knowledge that no Congress could impeach, much less convict, the first black president.

  14. I’ll say this much for the Obama Administration: they’re masters at ignoring both the letter *and* spirit of the law.

  15. With a recovery like Barry’s, who needs a recession. Now he is going to toss additional global warming measures into the mix?

    Genius.

    1. A good global-warming initiative is just what Americans need to shake them out of the pessimistic animal spirits that are causing this poor recovery.

  16. In regard to the climate initiative (which we don’t know the details of yet), not every agreement with foreign countries is done through a “treaty.” Presidents have done so in the past, including GW Bush on the pursuit of terrorists.

    In addition, there is this clause in the passed “Clean Air Act (1960)” in which it is clear that the EPA can take action if certain positions are met:

    “Whenever the Administrator, upon receipt of reports, surveys or studies from any duly constituted international agency has reason to believe that any air pollutant or pollutants emitted in the United States cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country or whenever the Secretary of State requests him to do so with respect to such pollution which the Secretary of State alleges is of such a nature, the Administrator shall give formal notification thereof to the Governor of the State in which such emissions originate. ”

    Hardly an overreach.

    1. Golly, if George W. Bush did it, then it’s A-okay.

      1. They all have done it…just bringing up the most recent. All trade agreements are just that…trade agreements with foreign countries. No treaty involved.

      2. Jordan|8.28.14 @ 12:49PM|#
        “Golly, if George W. Bush did it, then it’s A-okay.”

        Jack and ace ain’t the sharpest knife; if he can find a tu quoque, that’s a real victory for him.

    2. The only action prescribed is to inform the governor that there are emissions in his or her state.

  17. I’m in no way an Obama supporter, but I need a little clarification on the immigration issue – isn’t it within the Constitutional purview of the president to enforce existing immigration laws?

    1. To enforce, yes. He argues, fairly, I think, that with a policy of deferred action on deportations, he is simply exercising prosecutorial discretion.

      1. Minor sticking point: violating the terms of a visa is not a crime, but rather an administrative offense.

        This has important implications, I think, because “prosecutorial discretion” refers to a prosecutor declining to make an accusation because there is insufficient evidence. The burden of proof being on the state, the prosecutor should not make accusations he cannot reasonably substantiate.

        In an administrative hearing, however, the burden of proof is on the offender. The fact of the offense is self-evident, and the hearing exists only as a formality to identify any error in the process or to allow administrative remedy if appropriate.

        In other words, there is no discretion in immigration. If DHS knows you overstayed a visa, it is compelled to act. Failure to do so constitutes an abrogation of responsibility.

        1. (Just as background here, I disclose I’ve been an attorney working in both Immigration and Criminal defense, so I have some experience with this.)

          Actually, in Removal proceedings, the government gives the prospective deportee an NTA, which alleges certain facts which, if true, mean the alien is eligible for deportation. At the first hearing in Immigration court, the alien can either admit or deny these facts. If denied, the government has the burden of showing they are true.

          Second, as a practical matter, both the government and the attorneys have pretty wide discretion. Very often immigration matters will be administratively closed or terminated, depending on the circumstances, if the alien shows that he or she is eligible for some relief (e.g., an I-130 filed for the alien by a US Citizen spouse, or if the alien is DACA eligible, etc.)

          Moreover, DHS can decide to drop prosecution of a case on basically whatever grounds the Office of the Chief counsel finds compelling; while often a last resort of a desperate attorney, it nevertheless is a relatively common thing to ask for the exercise of PD on humanitarian grounds.

          I would also refer you to the Morton Memo, which is well known and frequently cited by immigration attorneys. In short, it summarizes a DHS policy that is inclined towards exercising PD toward low priority prospective deportees.

          1. Second paragraph: “Both the judges and the attorneys” is what I meant.

  18. This Obama character is such a preening little priss: Lazy and not all that bright.

    The garbage US citizen that voted for this leftist trash…get the Hell out of my country.

  19. Can someone help me please? If I say “Obama can go to hell,” does that mean that I’m racist?

  20. “I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

    Barack Obama, 2008

  21. I think the climate change thing will happen.

    Obama does not care about the Dems, or the US, or the Constitution. It is really obvious, he cares only about himself.

    He is so clearly a sociopath I can’t see how anyone would be surprised at this move.

    What does he want? What does he need? Where does he want to go after the Presidency? It is pretty obvious he wants to run the world. He will do world type agreements to bolster his image in the eyes of the world. The US can offer him nothing anymore that he hasn’t already gotten. Why in the world would he waste his time doing anything for the US? Dems/Repubs/the people/the Constitution/the economy???? What a waste of his time to work on those things now.

    The immigration thing will kind of help him as 3rd worlders would like a US president sticking it to the America first types. But, it isn’t likely to take him to the next step that he wants.

  22. Look for him to run the UN following his Presidency. And, look for him to stick it to the US every chance he gets. He will also do what he can to take the UN head to a ‘ruler of the world’ status.

    Just my prediction….

    He might also be too burnt out and realize big dreams require a lot of work and he will want to play the rest of his life on the taxpayers dime.

  23. I wouldn’t consider it a bad thing if Obamaa takes the next two years off for vacation. Sounds like a good plan to me.

    1. Indeed. A government that does nothing is far less harmful than a helpful government.

  24. Obama is rapidly shaping up to mirror any number of moronic socialists leaders from africa or south america.

    Completely inept and incompetent, yet still basking in his former glory and ever ready to enforce his power if you mock him.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.