On-Topic should the President have the power to ignore laws?

[Kulindahr]

Well when a soviet bureaucrat set the price of canned peas he's acting with the inherent exercise of government power too.

Yep -- because what power government gets to inherently exercise is determined by that government.

Just like the Bush government decided that Americans have no real rights against search and seizure or being spied on; the government gets to exercise that power.

When it comes down to it, there's no difference between government exercising inherent power or the inherent exercisee of government power.

 

[bankside]

I think it is generally recognized that no government structure can withstand sufficient popular opposition. That means that all governments in all countries embody the principle of "consent of the governed," even North Korea's.

We know that freedom in free countries was earned by the withdrawal of that popular consent, and change was paid for in blood and sacrifice. The Magna Carta did not write itself. What we know from the North Korean example is that they would rather have Dear Leader than pay a dear price for freedom, and thus consent is given for the status quo. A strange nation of masochists.

 

[kev]

The president can exercise his executive prerogative, as granted in the Constitution, over the decisions of the legislative branch of government. The discussion should be: is this edict by the president consistent with the powers granted him in the Constitution?

I cannot wait until President Romney issues a similar statement, and all of you far-lefties have a conniption.

 

[Rolyo85]

There are no far-lefties in this forum.

 

[jackoroe]

Presidents have the right to excersise prosecutorial discretion. You can look at Individual circumstances and decide that prosecution isn't in the public interest. That doesn't mean you get to change law by executive fiat. Or that you "prioritize" so that you don't enforce the law. That's an extremely dangerous precedent.

Obama acknowledged his inability to unlawfully impose his will back in 2009, other than an impending election what's different in 2012?

Obama on the DREAM Act: "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true."

Obama on DREAM Act: Can't "just change the laws unilaterally" Transcript - Lynn Sweet

 

[palemale]

a better point of example would probably be the "exemptions" he's giving for No Child Left Behind (a law that, while I may dislike personally, passed both chambers of congress with large bipartisan support)... I don't really see a difference between that versus a hypothetical President Romney doing an end-run around Congress to grant exemptions to following Obamacare for any state/health insurance company that doesn't wish to comply with its regulations.

I haven't read "No Child Left Behind," and do not know the law well. However, I assumed the statute gave the President the authority to grant waivers. In the absence of the statutory authority to grant such waivers, the President cannot and should not do so.

With respect to President Obama's decision on suspending the deportation of people who would have come under the Dream Act, the same question applies essentially. Do the immigration statutes give the executive branch the discretion to refrain from deporting some individuals? I don't know the answer, but assume the Justice Department sufficiently analyzed the relevant statutes to determine that it could at a minimum go before a judge and make an argument that it does sufficient to pass the laugh test.

The flip side of your question, though, is whether Congress can exercise it's power to "advise and consent" to filibuster appointments that render government agencies unable to enforce duly enacted legislation. The Republican filibuster of the President's appointment of the head of the CFPB and members of the NLRB would have rendered those agencies unable to carry out their statutory mandates to enforce the labor and consumer protection laws.

 

[JB3]

I haven't read "No Child Left Behind," and do not know the law well. However, I assumed the statute gave the President the authority to grant waivers. In the absence of the statutory authority to grant such waivers, the President cannot and should not do so.

With respect to President Obama's decision on suspending the deportation of people who would have come under the Dream Act, the same question applies essentially. Do the immigration statutes give the executive branch the discretion to refrain from deporting some individuals? I don't know the answer, but assume the Justice Department sufficiently analyzed the relevant statutes to determine that it could at a minimum go before a judge and make an argument that it does sufficient to pass the laugh test.

The flip side of your question, though, is whether Congress can exercise it's power to "advise and consent" to filibuster appointments that render government agencies unable to enforce duly enacted legislation. The Republican filibuster of the President's appointment of the head of the CFPB and members of the NLRB would have rendered those agencies unable to carry out their statutory mandates to enforce the labor and consumer protection laws.

NCLB allows for waivers, but not to the extent that they have been given. The waiver provisions of the law were only meant to be used in extraordinary circumstances and for a short period, but have instead been been granted for much longer periods of time and for reasons not covered by the provisions. Its also been highly political; battleground states have been given waivers with a pretty high frequency, while states that aren't up for grabs have gotten ignored for the most part. (Illinois among them) Basically, while its quasi-legal, the DOEd and the administration has been using it as a way to ignore a law they don't like.