Patterico's Pontifications

12/16/2014

Federal Judge: Obama’s Executive Amnesty Is Unconstitutional

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:21 pm



Jonathan Adler has the details in this post, as well as a link to the opinion.

It’s a rather unusual situation: it’s not as though one party sued to overturn Obama’s action, the government defended itself, and the court resolved the dispute. No, instead the issue arose in the context of a sentencing proceeding for someone convicted of unlawful reentry into the United States. The judge asked for further briefing on the applicability of the executive action, and then (without either party arguing for the unconstitutionality of the action) declared it unconstitutional . . . but took no action to set it aside.

Adler happens to believe that Obama’s unilateral action is constitutional, and opines in his post from today that the judge “appears to have reached out quite aggressively to engage the lawfulness of the President’s actions.”

But no matter what you think of the opinion’s merits, it makes for entertaining reading. The judge notes in some detail Obama’s previous statements that he lacked the authority to do what he is doing, and ridicules the notion that Congress’s inaction expands the president’s power.

9 Responses to “Federal Judge: Obama’s Executive Amnesty Is Unconstitutional”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f) — 12/16/2014 @ 6:23 pm

  2. Hopefully this is indicative of things to come.

    JD (cb4009) — 12/16/2014 @ 6:25 pm

  3. i can vouch for this opinion – it’s totally unconstitutional, this whole executive order amnesty thing

    totally.

    unconstitutional.

    you can tell just by imagining NPR’s flood-the-zone screechings what would be inspired by a similar action by a Republican president

    happyfeet (831175) — 12/16/2014 @ 6:41 pm

  4. I’ve read a few of the non-liberal bloggers/commentators that support the constitutionality of the OAmnesty but can’t understand them. I keep on getting stuck on how their arguments would not allow for a President to declare that all families that adopt a child from Asia will not be prosecuted if they don’t pay taxes.
    Or would all these people say that was okay too?

    seeRpea (01f6d3) — 12/16/2014 @ 6:49 pm

  5. Even republican bush supports amnesty. Democrats republican establishment business community support amnesty. tea baggers get another post natal abortion!

    amnesty now (36b531) — 12/16/2014 @ 6:59 pm

  6. It’s almost like a gratuitous bench slap, NTTTAWWT.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/16/2014 @ 7:00 pm

  7. Unless a court is willing to invalidate all deferred action, and order the deportation of all those unlawfully in the country, it’s not clear what it would mean to set aside the President’s directive.

    Now, there’s a thought.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/16/2014 @ 7:07 pm

  8. I do hope that a future GOP president issues a similar order to the IRS. Such as: “Do not audit, investigate or prosecute any tax cases where the statute of limitations will expire during my term.”

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/16/2014 @ 7:10 pm

  9. My understanding of the immigration imbroglio is that no Executive Order has been issued, but only a memo (or series of memos) titled Executive Actions (suggestions) have been issued, which would be an extreme over-reach by the Executive, if I may be so bold.
    The Bamster doesn’t even have the balls to take a definitive action in writing, but must rely on the interpretation of his moods by others.
    Perhaps Val’s Ouija board blew a fuse?

    askeptic (efcf22) — 12/16/2014 @ 7:37 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0829 secs.