Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What authority does the President have to issue Executive Orders (EOs)? He is the Chief Executive, surely he is able to issue orders. But he does not make laws. His authority to issue orders, is limited to carrying out programs already approved by Congress and passed as laws (and signed by him or a previous President).
Remember that before there was DACA, there was a bill in Congress that said people brought across the border illegally as young children, could stay. And it covered a lot of other immigration matters.
And that bill was VOTED DOWN by the Senate. Officially rejected, killed. The Senate, while doing its job as half the legislative branch, said that bill was DISAPPROVED to become a law in the United States. And the Constitution requires that both the House and the Senate approve a bill before it is enacted, if the President doesn't veto it.
But then, after the Senate said No, Obama simply made DACA a law anyway, by issuing an Executive Order.
An executive order is supposed to be something issued by the Executive Branch (President) to carry out something already passed by Congress. The usual example is if Congress passes a law saying a group of Federal buildings in DC will be painted brown. The Prez might issue an EO to get bids from companies, another EO to buy the materials and pull the permits, etc. He is issuing executive Orders to do something already passed by Congress.
It's bad enough when a President issues an EO concerning something that was never considered by Congress. He's going beyond the bounds of the executive Branch.
But when a President issues an EO that enacts something that was already considered and VOTED DOWN by Congress, what possible authority can he have to do so? What is the point of having a Congress at all, if the President can simply ignore them and make any law he wants, by a simple stroke of the pen?
The good news is, if Donald Trump does nothing and lets DACA expire, he IS acting to carry out something established by Congress... who voted DACA down.
And he doesn't even have to issue an Executive Order to do it. Although it would be entirely appropriate if he did.
The God Emperor wannabe issues another statement of non-existent constitutional authority trying to usurp even more power.
Elections are run at the state and local level. The federal executive has no authority to issue unilateral orders changing anything to do with the election.
How long are elected Rs going to put up with this nonsense? The guy clearly is quaking with fear at having a free and fair election administered under the rules that have always governed our elections, which again, are made locally by local election boards, with oversight from state offices.
Trump says a lot of stupid nonsense about what he is supposedly going to do. He also said he is going to stop federal funds to schools that refuse to open in a pandemic. He has no authority to stop funding that has been approved by Congress.
The panic is setting in. Trump is realizing that there is a real chance he might lose (I'm not saying he's going to lose, but there's a 50/50 shot at this point).
And Trump's ginormous ego and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) can't even process the idea of losing the election in November. so he is going off the rails trying to come up with ways to interfere with the voting process and/or delay the election. Trump has been claiming for weeks now that mail-in voting will see "unprecedented fraud," and his supporters have also been echoing the same. Even though they offer zero proof of potential voter fraud. None.
And since I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of City-Data Trump supporters and do it every chance I get, I'll do it again now: If Obama had claimed a nonexistent authority to issue an executive order to interfere or delay the 2016 election in any way, City-Data Trump supporters would lose their minds. Hannity & Tucker would be going absolutely bonkers. But since it's Trump, they don't have an issue with it. Hypocrisy.
This thread is not about DACA so I don't want it to be dragged off into a tangent, so this will be my one reply on that topic.
1. The SCOTUS has ruled that the DACA order was legal. The order did not attempt to unilaterally change any laws, it was an exercise of temporary prosecutorial discretion. The permanent immigration status of those people remains unresolved, which is why it is still a contentious political issue. Only a legislative solution will determine their final status.
2. As Trump himself has proved at the SCOTUS with his travel bans and border wall construction, immigration IS an area where the federal executive already has broad authority to issue discretionary EOs. Election law is NOT such an area, and would surely not be recognized as such by the courts.
This thread is not about DACA so I don't want it to be dragged off into a tangent, so this will be my one reply on that topic.
1. The SCOTUS has ruled that the DACA order was legal. The order did not attempt to unilaterally change any laws, it was an exercise of temporary prosecutorial discretion. The permanent immigration status of those people remains unresolved, which is why it is still a contentious political issue. Only a legislative solution will determine their final status.
2. As Trump himself has proved at the SCOTUS with his travel bans, immigration IS an area where the federal executive already has broad authority to issue discretionary EOs. Election law is NOT such an area, and would surely not be recognized as such by the courts.
Allowing the executive branch to use an EO to interfere with election law is unthinkable, but at the same time, I fully anticipate that we’re headed that direction.
1. The SCOTUS has ruled that the DACA order was legal.
And they also ruled that runaway slaves could be captured even in the North, and forcibly returned to their "owners". So much for relying on SCOTUS to be right.
Quote:
The order did not attempt to unilaterally change any laws,
Nonsense. The laws at the time said that no citizens from a foreign country could come into the United States without permission (visa or diplomatic permission etc.). DACA was flatly an attempt to violate those laws.
Quote:
it was an exercise of temporary prosecutorial discretion.
TRANSLATION: It was an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent flap. As we see today, it was a successful attempt, and now the open-borders crowd is pushing for more, and more, ad infinitum. But no more legally today than it was then.
And they also ruled that runaway slaves could be captured even in the North, and forcibly returned to their "owners". So much for relying on SCOTUS to be right.
Nonsense. The laws at the time said that no citizens from a foreign country could come into the United States without permission (visa or diplomatic permission etc.). DACA was flatly an attempt to violate those laws.
TRANSLATION: It was an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent flap. As we see today, it was a successful attempt, and now the open-borders crowd is pushing for more, and more, ad infinitum. But no more legally today than it was then.
I see you ignored the more pertinent point, probably because it was harder to refute.
The SCOTUS has allowed broad discretionary orders on immigration from both Rs and Ds, that is a consistent legal position. Both sides dislike the other sides' orders, but they were both allowed on that topic.
I see you ignored the more pertinent point, probably because it was harder to refute.
The SCOTUS has allowed broad discretionary orders on immigration from both Rs and Ds, that is a consistent legal position. Both sides dislike the other sides' orders, but they were both allowed on that topic.
No such authority exists on election law.
Indeed, but I’ll not hold my breath that Trump will refrain from trying it.
This thread is not about DACA so I don't want it to be dragged off into a tangent, so this will be my one reply on that topic.
1. The SCOTUS has ruled that the DACA order was legal. The order did not attempt to unilaterally change any laws, it was an exercise of temporary prosecutorial discretion. The permanent immigration status of those people remains unresolved, which is why it is still a contentious political issue. Only a legislative solution will determine their final status.
2. As Trump himself has proved at the SCOTUS with his travel bans and border wall construction, immigration IS an area where the federal executive already has broad authority to issue discretionary EOs. Election law is NOT such an area, and would surely not be recognized as such by the courts.
You are not a member of SCOTUS or their designated mouthpiece !!! Let them rule on the issue !!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
