Header Image (book)


Thursday, November 20, 2014

Unprecedented Territory

Our nation will be entering unprecedented territory if the President grants immigration amnesty via executive order.

Constitutional scholar Jonthan Turley on that topic:

In December 2013, about the President's changes to the ACA, Mr. Turley stated the following in his Congressional testimony about the separation of powers and the dangers of unilateral action:
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 in every single branch....
Time and again, Obama himself has stated that he cannot unilaterally declare immigration policy:

Nevertheless, indications are that Obama is knowingly and willfully precipitating a Constitutional crisis some 15 days after the November 2014 Elections, which did not go the way of the Democratic Party.

Additional reading from the Washington Post: Frustration over stalled immigration action doesn’t mean Obama can act unilaterally (the Post's view, August 5, 2014).


  1. Coincidence? November 20, 1910 is the anniversary of Mexican National Revolution Day.

    1. I heard that on the radio last night. Perfect. One evil hombre we have in the WH.

  2. Responsible journalists and liberals are discomfited by this. They realize it's implications if a Republican wins the White House.

    1. What goes around comes around. The more astute realize that Obama will be followed by another and perhaps not share their views of the world. Just like Reid who changed the rules in the Senate. That didn't last long.

  3. Mushrooms _ Keep them in the dark and sprinkle them with "fertilizer" every now and then.

  4. As Epa points out:

    This is not about amnesty, nor a bad deal with Iran, or about jobs and fossil fuel availability and prices.
    It is about the president DESTROYING our form and process of governing ourselves for (in the best case) reasons of expedience, and seizing power FROM OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVT because he is personally dissatisfied with the other EQUAL branches.
    Watch for the tortuous logic involved in the speech tonight, and listen to liberal Jonathan Turley, who UNDERSTANDS

  5. Oh yawn. You screechers on the right just crack me up...

    "Republicans Were Fine With Bush Acting On Immigration Reform Without Congress:"


    1. I believe Saint Ronnie Raygun also used an executive order.

      Federalist society accepts executive action

      Now that's the group that produced the likes of Roberts and Alito so a court challenge may not get very far.
      Might short circuit the standard r yammering about the Constitution.

  6. It is telling that the best the leftwing loonies can come up with is that other presidents did it too.

    As if that makes it all OK.

    Here are a few links that give the whole story and show the leftwing lies and the lying leftwing liars who lie them to be the leftwing liars they are:



    Reagan and Bush's actions were done in concert with congress and were due to exigent circumstances.

    Also, the lying liars in the Democrat party never fulfilled their part of the bargain over the 1986 Amnesty act. Our border is a joke, businesses are free to exploit cheap labor, and taxpayer-funded social services are free to all who apply, and no one is living in the shadows. Illegal immigrants march down the street, testify on Capitol Hill and even attend presidential speeches.

    The Democrat party and the lying liar leftist are nothing but a stinking pile of smirking lies.

  7. The leftwing progressive answer is to just abort more babies to stabilize the population.

    We can restore environmental damage by ceasing all use of petroleum products and electricity and going back to foraging for locally-available fruits and squatting around dung fires.

    1. No it isn't. That's a pant load.

      What the left does understand is that resource scarcity is a problem.

      This idea is nothing new and surfaced after Marx's critique of Adam Smith.
      We've been ducking it for some time since Keynes issued very stern warnings about the "economic problem".

      But you will not admit that the capitalist system must be seen as deficient in dealing with resource utilization.
      Now, does the left have a sufficient answer to this issue? No. But they understand it exists, a co-opted government can't deal with it and a base communal movement is needed.

      Of course since a mass movement is needed the oligarchs have prepared by supplying the police with military level armament (scary blacks and Muslims you know).

      So close your eyes and think magic thoughts, silverfiddle.
      The market got us into this mess and what we need is more free market.

    2. No, Ducky. You're the pantload. Scarcity is a fundamental principle of mainstream economics.


    3. Clearly.

      However, the distribution of scarce resources and the implications of scarce resources on growth have been neglected.

      I'm afraid I can't give you credit when you mere;y parrot the obvious.

    4. If repeating an economic fundamental you learned in college is parroting the obvious, then so be it.

      Sometimes, when trying to push back the frontiers of ignorance, the obvious must be stated.

    5. You are confusing raw materials with finished market ready goods.

    6. No. I'm confusing you with someone who wants to have a sincere conversations.

      The Thomas Malthus types have been screaming since time immemorial about population bombs, new ice ages, peak oil, whatever.

      Meanwhile, free markets have steadily and continually advanced humankind, because free markets don't just produce goods and services; they nurture scientific discovery and human inventiveness.

      There will always be hard winters, droughts, floods, food shortages over there, disease outbreak over here. We cannot control that, but we can foster an environment where the light of reason and scientific discovery flourish and find ways to overcome these inevitable challenges.

  8. AOW... This will only be a constitutional crisis if people decide to make it so. Legal opinion is rather mixed on this with both sides seeming to have merit on the question of prosecutorial deference. While the numbers are much larger for Pres Obama, what he is proposing is the same type of adjustment of the laws that Presidents Reagan and Bush did when they signed similar EO's.

    The GOP is asking him to give them time to pass comphrehensive reform now that they have a majority in both houses. But the Senate has already passed a bill supported by a large bipartisan margin. The house can vote on that bill tomorrow, and it will pass, thereby nullifying any EO.

    This is a case of what goes around comes around and indeed one day the shoe will be on the other food. But for now Pres Obama is living with the power of the unitary executive that was enhanced under GWB.

    1. @ Dave Miller: what he is proposing is the same type of adjustment of the laws that Presidents Reagan and Bush did when they signed similar EO's.

      Dave, that is a lying leftwing lie. Please see links above. Their actions were taken in coordination with congress.

      I expect such parroting from the leftwing loons who infest our part of Blogistan, but I am disappointed to see you engaged in it as well.

    2. Well, whatever he does might well be repealed by the next congress.

      Is Obama trolling the Republican party for Boehner's refusal to allow any votes on immigration? Maybe.

      At any rate, continue your name calling, something Dave never resorts to.

    3. Silver... you are wanting it both ways... and the Reagan example is perfect. Congress acted and did not foresee all of the consequences of what they passed. That is normal in any admin, or congress.

      Then what happened was that Reagan acted with Executive Authority, to clean up a bill that was was not fully formed, or operable. And Congress, from both parties supported him.

      Fast forward a number of years and in fact, we do have the same situation. Congress passed Obamacare and as it was being implemented, we learned that they missed some things and that there were some clean up necessary. So Obama acted by Executive Order, in response to an act of Congress, to fix those issues.

      And yet, the right saw that as usurping his authority and acting outside of the Constitution. Now he acts with the authority even conservative scholars begrudgingly say he has, and the right makes the same claim.

      Please tell me when and how Obama can act with EO's and it be okay?

      I read the pieces from the Atlantic and the Federalist... it is interesting to note that in this video from the Federalist, they seem to acknowledge Obama's right to act.


      All to say, as I said before, that he may, or may not, have authority to act as he is going to. A Constitutional crisis will largely rest on the response of the right.

      There has got to be a way to disagree agreeably. You'll never get the America you want, and neither will I. The question is whether we will choose to live peacefully and do the best we can for our country together.

    4. Dave,
      Obama has as much as stated outright that he's trying an end run around Congress.

      By the way, not all those who attended that recent meeting at the Federalist Society were conservatives. Some of the attendees advocated a broad definition of prosecutorial discretion.

    5. The analogy to Obamacare is inapt. Obama is imperiously doing things that should be addressed by congress, and I notice you avoided the relative demerits of Obama's current actions, which, unlike Bush's and Reagan's is against the sense and will of congress and is attached to no recent laws that have been passed.

      You bring up legality, which is a separate but related issue. Many who are opposed to this nonetheless concede that his proposed actions are probably legal.

      The concern is that he is doing this unilaterally and against the will of a majority of congress and against the will of a majority of Americans, many who want to see this addressed in an orderly way.

      This sets one hell of a precedent.

    6. Duck,
      Well, whatever he does might well be repealed by the next congress.

      Could be, but I'm not sure that repeal is the correct word. Are executive orders repealed by Congress, or do they have to be nullified by the next Chief Executive?

    7. Silver, I appreciate your honesty is addressing the legality of his actions. Few conservatives blogging will go there, because it potentially undercuts their argument.

      If it is legal, then whether or not it is attached to a specific legal action is superflous isn't it? Because if it is legal, then the past actions of other presidents and their precedent do not matter.

      I am not sure this is against the will of Congress. If the approved Senate bill had been brought to a vote in the House in the last year, it would have passed.

      It is totally against the will of the GOP, but they are not the only folks in Congress.

      The GOP is on shaky ground if they are going to stand on a "will of the people" principle. Think higher taxes on big earners, higher minimum wage, gun registration, etc.

      I'm not pushing any of those stances perse, but McConnell has plainly said Obama is calling the American people stupid because he is not following their will in this case.

      Is that the same always? Or just in this case?

      And that's where we are. In the absence of a real proposal from the GOP controlled House, which we've had since 2010, what should we do? Why do people like McCain plead for more time for the GOP House to respond? Was two years not enough?

      It's just such a mess. Everybody wants to win and slay the "other" giant. No one gives the other the benefit of the doubt and rarely acknowledges when the other side has a good point.

    8. Silver... BTW, your precedent remark is what's interesting... I believe John Yoo mentioned this too in his response to the Federalist Video...

    9. AOW... you are right in that not all were conservatives...

    10. Dave,
      If the approved Senate bill had been brought to a vote in the House in the last year, it would have passed.

      Well, it wasn't brought up for a vote.

      And let us not forget that Harry Reid didn't bring many bills up for a vote, either.

      I do wonder why Obama didn't move on immigration when he had a Dem majority in both Houses of Congress.

      Oh, wait! He was worried about the impact upon his own re-election in 2012.

    11. Dave,
      I don't know if it is illegal or not, which is why I allow for the possibility that it is not. Obama himself was against this action and thought it illegal before he was for it, so who knows?

      This is definitely a disturbing turn. That he could not get the GOP on board in no excuse. I can't believe you brought that up. This is how our representative democracy works.

      What if the next president is a Repub and congress doesn't give him what he wants, so he just takes it?

      It is scary the lengths to which Democrat citizens will go to justify such abuse. I'm afraid Obama's Obamacare economics professor was right about you guys. I won't repeat his insults, but you all do seem to have battered wife syndrome.

  9. My favorite Jonathan Turley quote:

    'Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.'

  10. The definition of prosecutorial discretion is the loophole that Obama may well use in this executive order. That definition has blurred lines.

    1. Since when is prosecutorial discretion a loophole? I'm guessing even the most conservative SCOTUS member would not call that principle a loophole.

      I understand there are things we don't like, but to misclassify, or wrongly characterize them simply on that basis, when done by either the left, or the right, does not get us closer to solutions.

      And yes, we're all, including me, guilty of this at times...

    2. Dave,
      Since when is prosecutorial discretion a loophole?

      Because, as I said above, the definition and the parameters are disputable.

    3. It is, in a sense, a loophole. It's not a political one, but it is a legal one.
      It allows a prosecutor to ignore a case for whatever reason he chooses. Basically because they are overwhelmed as is. It wouldn't exist if we had infinite prosecutors or budgets- it is not legal per say, merely a compromise with reality.

      Using it to say "I don't LIKE this law, so I won't enforce it" is basic loophole abuse. A loophole, quite frankly, is any legal writing that let's you get out of doing what you don't want to do. 99.9% of the time, prosecutorial discretion is a reasonable loophole- since prosecutors have to eat, sleep, etc., but it is STILL a loophole!

      Or what else would you call a legal excuse not to do something you normally, lawfully have to do?


    4. It tears one more gaping hole in the fabric of our constitutional form of government.

    5. Wildstar,
      Have you ever seen the publications which include all the regulations designed by federal agencies? Volume after volume after volume. Nobody really knows what all the regulations are, yet those regulations affect every aspect of our lives. It is surreal!

  11. In a comment above, Silverfiddle stated something that bears repeating:

    Reagan and Bush's actions were done in concert with congress .

    And as I mentioned above, Obama has basically admitted that this executive order is an end run around Congress.

    1. There is no Congress to do anything in concert with at the moment.
      At any rate, the legality of an executive action measured by the degree to which it is in concert with congress is problematic.

      If he grants a blanket amnesty then we have a shit storm. Little doubt and I can't see that happening.

      What he might do is call a halt to most deportations which seems reasonably within his powers.

      By the way, AOW, I had noted that you chose Dickens' "Hard Times" as one of your semester readings.
      I've always seen it as a very strict criticism of Utilitarianism which was a theory developed to get us out of Marx's criticism of Smiths view of growth.
      I think Dickens was too harsh but I'm curious about your take. It's a difficult book, I think.

    2. Duck,
      There is no Congress to do anything in concert with at the moment.

      Then the executive branch is stymied for the duration, however long that duration might be. That's the way the system is designed.


      About Dickens's Hard Times...

      Students typically love the book. Pure Utilitarianism is an extreme that dehumanizes. The supposed philanthropy of unions doesn't work too well as an antidote to Utilitarianism because of the unions' internal corruption and, of course, the greed factor. The "best way" is somewhere in the middle, and Thomas Gradgrind does manage to find balance. Ultimately, the book is social reform novel and effectively shows that often reforms go badly awry. Hard Times is my favorite Dickens novel, BTW.

  12. This should be of interest to all those who are sincerely participating in this thread:

    Republicans Can Defund Obama’s Executive Order, They Just Don’t Want To.

    What do you think of that information?

    1. I think it is probably accurate. Look, the adults in the room know that DC is one giant criminal enterprise, where one party is chary of checking the actions of the other for fear of imperiling their own scams and cut of the stolen loot.

      The rare true fight breaks out when one gang make too major a move on the other gang's territory.

      That's what makes Obama's actions so shocking. Dems have got to know that the next GOP president will use this as a precedent to justify his own thievery or constitution trampling.

  13. Yeah, let the GOP shut down the government becasue they don't want to collect billions of additional dollars in taxes. Idiots.

  14. I would rather pass a cactus out of my a-- then to watch the POTUS in action tonight. I am going shopping.


    1. But maybe Louie Gohmert (T - The Pride of Texas) will deliver a rebuttal.

      Wouldn't want to miss that.

    2. Duck,
      Your needle is stuck on Gohmert. Are you afraid of him -- or something?

    3. There are others. It's just that he may be the dumbest member of Congress ever.

    4. It's just that he may be the dumbest member of Congress ever.

      Sheila Jackson Lee and Barbara Boxer are fighting over that one, trying to wrestle it away from the Democrat who worried that the island of Guam may tip over because of all our military hardware.

    5. SF,
      I'd forgotten about that Guam "statement." Why didn't that inane "statement" disqualify him as a Congressman?

    6. That was largely caused by hepatic encephalopathy.

      I'm not sure what Gohmert's excuse is.

    7. Gohmert is pretty far right, but he seems coherent the times I have heard him speak or read what he has written.

      Do you have some examples we can evaluate?

  15. There now, that wasn't so bad.

    Hardly worth all the Sturm und Drang.

  16. Last night, BHO emphasized that the immigrants affected by this executive order will be paying their fair share of taxes. But will they, really?

    At what point does the Earned Income Tax Credit kick in, and do most of these illegals qualify for the EITC?

    I'm asking. I don't understand the details of the EITC.

  17. In a comment above, Silverfiddle typed in:

    Obama himself was against this action and thought it illegal before he was for it....

    My reasoning -- on one cup of coffee...

    Obama thought that taking such action would cost the Dems the next election. He was up for re-election, of course, in 2012.

    BHO cannot run for POTUS in 2016.

    Also, even though BHO won the election in 2012, he couldn't get immigration reform through Congress (the one elected in 2010 or 2012).

    He chose the ACA over immigration reform. Why he didn't push for immigration reform in 2009-2011, when he had the Congress on his side, is a mystery to me -- except for that 2012 POTUS election.

    He could grant waivers to delay ObamaCare's impact;.

    But millions of immigrants coming out of the shadows would not have been invisible.

    So, either Obama lied all those years before last night, or he lied last night -- or both.

  18. Is it my imagination, or did Obama smirk his way through last night's announcement?

  19. Yeah. I didn't watch Pee Wee's Big Adventure last night. I was at "Targeaux". It is a pricey boutique for people like me who are a half-step up from the Wal-Mart people.

    Entitlements for non-citizens are glaringly apparent in my city - a vibrant hub for those who enter my nation unlawfully. One "out of the shadows" moment came when our son used a hospital-based clinic to treat an infected toe. One injection and one prescription later, he was out three hundred dollars. Yet I knew that those with Hispanic surnames could sign up for a special program and be seen for ten dollars. Yes, this is a vignette. But I really would have liked to have had equal access for equal price for my son. Anti-citizen penalty is part of our suite of laws when it comes to immigration entitlements. I told my son to change his name to Rodriguez.

    *We should have seen this coming, folks. Idiopath Rick Warren's inaugural prayer sings God's praise - including "HeSus". My friend quipped, "Did he just pray in the name of a Mexican gardener?" Prayer should not be politically motivated. His (discreet cough) prayer was laden with worldly burden as opposed to God's infinite grace.


    1. $300 for an injection and a prescription?

      Why doesn't he have insurance?

    2. Duck,
      FYI....He does has insurance, but not through an employer. A lot of employers have skirted the ACA by avoiding full-time hires. Insurance purchased on one's own is not "gold plated" and typically carries a high deductible.

      Take note of this fact:

      those with Hispanic surnames could sign up for a special program and be seen for ten dollars

  20. sssshhh! the mantra now is "turley isn't really liberal" because he disagrees with the liberals.
    Don't forget, when one of theirs has a different opinion, he's just plain WRONG...but now it's even that he's NOT A LIBERAL :-)

    1. Excellent observations, Z!

      First they came for the minorities who wouldn't toe the progressive line...
      Then they came for the women...

    2. Wow, someone criticized the president.

      That's never happened before.

    3. We're talking about liberals and Jonathan Turley old man.

      Close your bathrobe and try to keep up.

    4. You've never heard a liberal criticize Obama and you're telling me to keep up?


    5. We don't affectionately refer to you as Canardo* for nothing

      * - FreeThinke's brilliand moniker for the Beantown Quacker

    6. I would ADORE hearing a list of liberals who've criticized Obama who aren't far leftwingers but 'thinking' people who still love America.
      Please supply that, Ducky. I honestly would enjoy that as Republicans are usually the only bunch that eats their young.
      Ya, I'd love to see mainstream liberals insult their hero; I know people like you don't think he's liberal ENOUGH ...apparently, destroying our freedoms with his demands of buying health insurance, his world apology tours when America's done so much good for other countries (believe me, it HAS), dividing American races like never done before by a sitting president, etc etc., isn't QUITE enough for leftwingers on the left side of sane.??

      Do Libs even watch news that shows Pelosi ask "Who's Gruber?" when she was freaked about his videos calling us 'stupid'... months after she bragged on Gruber and what a great job he's done, or Obama actually saying Grubers "not even on staff" which is TECHNICALLY correct but when we pay hundreds of thous to a guy for work done 'for us', I'm thinking this is a pretty disingenuous comment? Reid, too, I believe, forgot who Gruber was when trouble started?
      What a bunch of LIARS>
      And PLEASE don't tell us ALL PRESIDENTS LIE; we have VIDEOS showing this stuff PLUS videos announcing he could NEVER do anything like he did Friday for so many various reasons....THINK, leftwingers, do NOT drink your damned KoolAid without THINKING...watching....it's ON TAPE.

  21. We are standing in unprecedented territory. Done is did.

  22. Replies
    1. This is being discussed on various liberal blogs.

      I think the take away is not whether something "worked" or "didn't work" but the use of the executive action when Congress is inert.

    2. Don't be ridiculous; we don't go against the laws of the land because a president is antsy to push something through. Congress wouldn't have been 'inert' the first 2 years when the Left owned it.

      My favorite is Reid wouldn't bring up about 350 bills the last few years, but let the Republicans not want to vote within 2 weeks after taking over Congress and the president is so angry they won't bring it to a vote :-)

    3. Z,
      Why aren't the Republicans pointing out at every opportunity the act that Reid wouldn't bring up about 350 bills the last few years?

      Here another truth:

      Congress is deemed "inert" by Obama because the House isn't doing what he wants.

    4. And one more thing....Obama is demanding that the Congress send to him an immigration bill that he will sign.

      What does he demand in that bill that he will accept?

      With Obama, everything is "my way or the highway." Worse than many POTUSES have been in the past.

    5. have you EVER heard a president say "I" so often, or MY or I AM PRESIDENT, or AS PRESIDENT. It's almost scary.

  23. Executive action for sweeping changes that provide a demolition ball action against a complete suite of laws? Come on Ducky. This is the same demolition ball that was used to institute Obamacare.

    Obama's archipelago of executive orders is stunning in scope. I would prefer that he do like Clinton - pardon a few scoundrels like Marc Rich - which causes far less damage to the electorate at large.

    Oh, but wait a minute! The POTUS IS pardoning several million who are lawless fugitives. We can defund ICE. Their services are no longer needed.


    1. The president presides over the EXECUTIVE branch.
      Why is it a surprise that he issues EXECUTIVE orders?

      Now, what's this about a pardon?
      Nothing he said last night grants pardons.

    2. Because EO aren't suppose to exist. They are legal fiction created by Congress and the SCOTUS.

      They originally were, literally, 'filling in the details of Congress's Acts.' The point was, Congress told the Executive 'we're passing THIS act to give you THIS power with THESE parameters for THIS purpose. Follow our instructions, and fill in the details.' To pick on my favorite group, the EPA. Congress created them, with specific mission and specific powers. They did not write down every tiny little thing the EPA is suppose to do or could do (that would a) be impossible b) be too long).

      So, they said "we want you to do THIS. Here's the limits of your power" and left the executive to do the dirty work of actually running it.

      The executive branch can be aptly re-named to the Instigator Branch. Congress gives the orders, the Executive makes sure those orders actually happen. Plain and simple. NOT that the executive gives orders and THEN instigates them. That's a monarch, not an executor.


  24. https://screen.yahoo.com/white-house-excludes-unfriendly-media-144853746.html

    let me just say that occasions like that and dinners at the WH hoping for bipartisanship by not inviting the Republican senators, etc., is not what America's about.
    Why is alright to exclude people (after all, the left is all about inclusivity with illegals, etc., yes?) only if they think differently?

    1. Obama, the king of progressive identity politics, is all about dividing us, herding us into constituency groups, and pitting us against one another. That's the leftwing progressive way.

    2. DIVIDE and CONQUER...and the media won't cover much of this. It's FINE when their guys do it.
      Imagine a press conference with only the president's guys?
      And the Left hates to compare us now to fascism? :-)


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.