September 6, 2017
"How the end of DACA is being framed as a legal matter — and how the Obama administration allowed that to happen."
That's the topic of the NYT "Daily" podcast this morning. Audio here. Interesting to hear the NYT put the responsibility squarely on Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
The fact that many people are completely ignorant of the facts, is less interesting. "With a pen and a phone"
Interesting to hear the NYT put the responsibility squarely on Obama.
It is interesting, but isn't the fact that it's interesting a testament to the poor state of perception of the Media? The framing of President Obama's DACA plan is of course President Obama's doing/was of course his responsibility...but like you I would have expected the NYTimes to make some effort to try and place blame elsewhere. Sad.
Obama is now living in the shadows
Interesting whenever journalists signal to politicians that they need help framing an issue in a manner that would benefit the politicians. Usually, when an outlet like the Times does this, it's of the "We're trying to help you but you're not making it easy" nature.
Everything Trump can do to illustrate the Obama Administration's flouting of the law is a step in draining the swamp.
He should take every opportunity to make these things painfully obvious to the NYT's core audience.
I wonder if there will ever be enough political momentum on limiting executive power/overreach that a constitutional convention could happen leading to a new amendment. But I tend to doubt it. In political systems it seems like power has a tendency to naturally accrete rather than to be diffused. Events where power is decentralized away from a single person (like the signing of the Magna Carta) seem like anomalies brought about by an extreme set of circumstances.
Tom Cotton clearly elucidates the issue - his RAISE Act is a good legislative step in the right direction. The bottom line is whether you want strict or lenient border enforcement. If the latter, there are consequences: lower wages for unskilled jobs, bigger welfare state, more multi-culturism, and, of course, more Dem voters.
"...framed as a legal matter..."
That's some fucking gall from the NYT.
Will America ever truly be color blind?
This white privilege BS and the push to flood the country with 3rd world people is anti-white. And diversity love is anti-white because it values the non-white person over the white person. So those SJW 's who say they want a color blind society are liars. They really want a less-white society. Why is that?
I listened to the whole podcast, and they mentioned, although they downplayed, the reality that Trump was threatened by a lawsuit which resulted in this action. There was a lot of puffery for the Obama deed, but they failed to discuss what happened June, 2016 - which is that DAPA (DACA for adults) reached the SC and was not permitted to go forward. Well, if that's not legal than DACA's not legal, so Trump really doesn't have an alternative.
I think there is support in the country as a whole for letting these people stay. It seems likely that Congress will act. I don't believe the whole DACA program is constitutional - while the Executive may have the scope to say that these are not deportation priorities, extending that to granting legal authority to work is extremely legally iffy I don't think a court case would come out well for the DACA contingent.
So it comes down to Congress, which does have the legal authority to act. If there is a moral claim here, it is on Congress. And perhaps the NYT has enough decency left to realize that unless its readers understand that and put pressure on Congress, the other side, which does understand that, may win.
Well I am confused. If it's not a "legal matter" then what the hell is it?
"illegal matter", "illegitimate matter", "unlawful matter"...
""How the end of DACA is being framed as a legal matter"
God forbid.
Well I am confused. If it's not a "legal matter" then what the hell is it?
Anti-matter.
DACA is and was terrible policy.
End it ASAP.
It's not a legal matter because reasons.
For those who don't remember, the Times was formerly a paper you could depend on more often than not to provide a reasonably fair and serious legal analysis; now it happens once in a blue moon.
"If it's not a "legal matter" then what the hell is it?"
Political. Moral. Philosophical. Poetic. Emotional. There are many frameworks that can be imposed on a matter that can also be understood in legal terms. Most of what fits the category "separation of powers" plays out without much imposition of a strictly legal framework, and at this point in American legal history, the law of separation of powers is almost entirely dependent on political notions.
The favorite point of reference in separation of powers law is Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the Youngstown Steel case, 60+ years ago, where he began with the observation:
"That comprehensive and undefined presidential powers hold both practical advantages and grave dangers for the country will impress anyone who has served as legal adviser to a President in time of transition and public anxiety. While an interval of detached reflection may temper teachings of that experience, they probably are a more realistic influence on my views than the conventional materials of judicial decision which seem unduly to accentuate doctrine and legal fiction. But, as we approach the question of presidential power, we half overcome mental hazards by recognizing them. The opinions of judges, no less than executives and publicists, often suffer the infirmity of confusing the issue of a power's validity with the cause it is invoked to promote, of confounding the permanent executive office with its temporary occupant. The tendency is strong to emphasize transient results upon policies -- such as wages or stabilization -- and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic.
"A judge, like an executive adviser, may be surprised at the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive power as they actually present themselves. Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result, but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any question. They largely cancel each other. And court decisions are indecisive because of the judicial practice of dealing with the largest questions in the most narrow way."
It hasn't gotten more precisely legalistic since then!
Speaking of dreamers. You're the dreamer if you say if it's not a "legal matter" then what the hell is it?
All of a sudden it's long live King Donald if it's about their pet project of re-engineering the electorate.
"It is interesting, but isn't the fact that it's interesting a testament to the poor state of perception of the Media?"
Does the media really not understand (poor state of perception), or does it willfully misrepresent the facts?
Will America ever truly be color blind?
It was always going to be a somewhat elusive goal, but a unifying one.
Today, schools are telling their teachers not to say "When I see you I don't see color." Without discussion, deliberation or debate, the goal of a colorblind society has officially ended. Replaced with...well, watch the news.
FYI Actually Joseph had no trouble at all figuring out the meaning of dreams.
"How the end of DACA is being framed as a legal matter — and how the Obama administration allowed that to happen."
And then YOU say: "Interesting to hear the NYT put the responsibility squarely on Obama...."?!
Wow, I'm absolutely dazed and amazed by your suggestion the NYT "put the responsibility squarely on Obama."!!! ...Imho they did just the OPPOSITE - they positioned him in this headline as some sort of passive observer - not the arch Constitutional felon he deliberately and singularly chose to be.
Personally, I'm already sick of this entire subject and if I hear this phony PR word 'Dreamers" even once more - which I obviously will a million times - I might well hurl my last meal.
The only thing remaining of interest to me is whether these moronic 'dreamer protestors' will ever wake up to the damage they may do to THEMSELVES between now and March by continuing their overly aggressive and hostile claims and DEMANDS that they are somehow OWED the full panoply of Citizen Rights. WTF? Sorry, no way - too many of you are clearly NOT dreamers, you are no more than moondogs; you are not 'immigrants', you are 'illegal aliens' here on temporary status and national compassion at best; but whatever this Nation finally and legally holds out to you will not be OWED, it will be GIVEN by its Laws and legal citizens. And your demonstration behavior exhibits that at least some of you are rather singularly unimpressive and undeserving of citizenship. Keep this up at your own risk.
Frankly, I think this group has little to fear for the future if they simply sit-down, shutup and work hard at a job/school to prove themselves in the coming months. But keep up with the dumb t-shirts, slogans, raised fists, obnoxious shouting and navel-gazing 'demands' and you might be writing a return ticket to the legal home of your parents.
I told my Obama loving Trump hating friends that I actually rate this DACA dance as one of Obama's accomplishments--albeit with help from Trump. The Constitution assigns authority over immigration and citizenship to the legislative branch--not the executive.
Congress critters have been bloviating, spouting nonsense and general bull dust for years about immigration "control" "reform' "amnesty" or whatever term they choose to use. They have done all that preening and puffing, secure in the knowledge that they are never actually going to have to vote on the question.
Now with Trump's move the 535 swamp critters on the Potomac are actually going to have to vote yea or nay on the issue--and be revealed to their constituents for what they are. Congress may well simply reenact DACA as is--and if they do Trump will probably sign it. I don't much care about the outcome--reasonable minds can and will differ about what the "right thing to do" is. But I sure like seeing Congress forced to actually do its job.
So in NBA terms, I'd score this as an assist from Obama, and a dunk by The Donald.
"The only thing remaining of interest to me is whether these moronic 'dreamer protestors' will ever wake up to the damage they may do to THEMSELVES between now and March by continuing their overly aggressive and hostile claims and DEMANDS that they are somehow OWED the full panoply of Citizen Rights."
This. And the entire rest of the comment. And the use of "moondogs", a glorious noun beautifully deployed.
You're the dreamer if you say if it's not a "legal matter" then what the hell is it?
My position on these things, is that Executive Orders issued in the face of legislative lack of action, is basically a commanding order from the chief executive, and written in such a way as to be legal. That is, survive judicial review.
When the chief is replaced, the new chief has the legal right to review all orders from previous chiefs, and to deal with them as they see fit.
To call this a moral matter, is raising the bar of executive privilege, as I think moral issues should be decided by more than two people at the mansion, who have only short-term political ambitions.
My position, is that Congress is the only place where long-term national changes to society and the laws that deal with the changes should emanate.
Blogger MaxedOutMama said...
"..... It seems likely that Congress will act. ...........So it comes down to Congress, which does have the legal authority to act. If there is a moral claim here, it is on Congress. And perhaps the NYT has enough decency left ..."
- "Congress will act"? Yes, eventually, we suppose, but after how long a time and to what specific end are the hanging questions.
- Yes, yes, Congress has the 'authority' within its own limits and that of Judicial review. But this has been true for years and what have they done so far - nada. The same is true for multiple other issues from Economics to Defense/National Security. Personally, I suspect that to watch this one work thru the Political and self-serving Congress will be akin to watching the Roman Games.
- As to Congress having a "moral claim", I can only guffaw. They seem essentially incapable with managing their own 'moral' responsibilities much less passing Laws based on 'moral' tenets - which might actually be a feature for the Nation, not a fault.
"You're the dreamer if you say if it's not a "legal matter" then what the hell is it?" I know, I know, this is America, so stuff the rule of law.
But even in a country where law is a mere suggestion to be exploited politically, and the Constitution lives just long enough to be declared dead after progs have their way, it is a tad surprising to hear defenders of illegal aliens argue that the president should be able to give things to people that the law says he shouldn't.
Blogger Etienne said...Well I am confused. If it's not a "legal matter" then what the hell is it?
--
Documentation. The undocumented.
But if your parents manage to beat the system, it's all good.
Sorry bout those "dreamers" foolishly doing it legally. Stupid dreamers.
Our local news in the Bay Area is going to great lengths to ignore the legal issues behind DACA and focusing on the sob stories. It drives me nuts. I can't tell if the reporters are completely ignorant of the issues, or if they just don't want to ask. Neither explanation is particularly flattering.
JaimeRoberto said...
It drives me nuts. I can't tell if the reporters are completely ignorant of the issues, or if they just don't want to ask. Neither explanation is particularly flattering.
9/6/17, 3:12 PM
It is the modern/current version of "don't ask, don't tell".
Sob stories are all they have.
Everyone knows it's totally against the law.
If you rob a bank and give the money to your kid; when caught your kid has to give the money back.
It's that simple.
AJ Lynch said...
"... those SJW 's who say they want a color blind society are liars. They really want a less-white society. Why is that?"
Well, it's not so hard to figure for the ones who aren't white. They want our stuff. They mostly don't understand that the current supply of stuff doesn't last very long, and the apparent abundance of stuff is actually the result of its continual replenishment. So they figure, once we are gone, they can have all the stuff they will ever need. Pretty simple.
It's the white ones I can't figure. But I suppose if you are the sort of person who kills your own babies, the idea of your race being eliminated is maybe not a big concern. As long as they eat you last, of course.
Post a Comment