Ronald Reagan and Immigration: The AP Distortion
[/I]
By: Jeffrey Lord
November 19th, 2014
You just have to love how the Left plays their game.
As the nation braces for President Obama to issue a patently un-constitutional executive order granting amnesty to, as reports would have it some five million illegals, liberals across the spectrum rush to defend him by saying wait for it "Reagan did it too!" In fact, President Obama is saying this as seen here in USA Today.
Well, no. Reagan did most definitely not do it too.
Well, no. Reagan did most definitely not do it too.
But that doesn't stop the onslaught, particularly in the mainstream media. Case in point? This story touted by Obama aides by the Associated Press headlined: "2 GOP presidents acted unilaterally on immigration."
The presidents in question are Reagan and George H.W. Bush or, as the latter is known these days, 41.
The Left's storyline tries to tell Americans this, as expressed succinctly in the AP story:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration - and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986. Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.
Reagan's action was in accordance with the law - the statute. The very law that he had signed after - say again after - it was passed by Congress. What President Obama is about to do is unilaterally write the law - as if he were writing or re-writing a statute - all by himself.
Here's the sleight of hand, and the not very clever one at that. For this explanation we turn to two people who know exactly what they are talking about. First, Fox News legal beagle-in-chief Judge Andrew Napolitano. And the second, Jonathan Turley, the law professor from George Washington University who is not only a liberal but, as reported here in Politico has been hired by House Republicans to oversee the lawsuit to be filed by Republicans against President Obama for "executive overreach."
Judge Napolitano explains the difference to Megyn Kelly. In one word? The difference between what Reagan and Bush did and what Obama intends to do is the word "statute."
As everyone knows, in 1986 President Reagan signed into law the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, known officially as The Immigration and Control Act. We'll come back to that at a later time - the law did not work as Reagan intended (hint: No border security as promised). But for immediate purposes it is important to know that in signing the bill Reagan's presidential signature made the bill a law - a statute. Presidents cannot pass laws unilaterally. That's the job of the Congress per the Constitution, as every American school child is suppose to learn early on. What presidents can do - must do if a bill is to become law - is sign the bill. That's what Reagan did.
Presidents also have the job of interpreting the statute they are sworn to uphold. So sworn by the presidential oath in which they "do solemnly swear" to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States " and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What is the difference between Reagan and Obama? Reagan's action was in accordance with the law - the statute. The very law that he had signed after - say again after - it was passed by Congress. What President Obama is about to do is unilaterally write the law - as if he were writing or re-writing a statute - all by himself. As Judge Napolitano says:
When he suspends deportations, and when he imposes his own conditions on those suspensions, he's effectively re-writing the law. And that violates his oath to enforce and uphold the law as it's been written. The American people, the Congress and the courts need to know that we have a president who will enforce the law. When he says 'I will not enforce the law because I don't like it or I'm impatient', that doesn't wash under the Constitution.
The Judge goes on to say quite pointedly and specifically what is the Reagan/Obama difference:
Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has suspended some deportations. President Reagan did it to 100,000 families. He did it on the basis of the 1986 statute enacted by the Congress. President George H.W.Bush did it for 1.5 million people, only about 350,000 took advantage of it, and it was based on his interpretation of the statute. President Obama does not re-interpret a statute. He takes a statute and says 'I'm going to disregard it. I'm going to give you a better one. I'm going to set down a set of standards that I would have written had I been the law maker.' He's not the law maker, he's the law enforcer.'
Fox host Kelly, also a lawyer, asked the Judge: "At what point does he cross the clear line from discretion to completely ignoring his executive obligations to enforce the law?" Judge Napolitano correctly answers:
"When he grossly abuses his discretion, and when the effect of his discretion is to suspend a statute or to have the opposite effect of what the statute commands, that is a gross abuse. He will be playing with constitutional fire if he does this."
This was further emphasized by liberal law professor Turley, who underlined the basic principle at stake:
What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance. And that doesn't protect the branches. It's not there to protect the executive branch or legislative branch. It's to protect liberty. It's to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty. The American people have to force this issue
What President Obama is about to do is effectively declare himself the Emperor of the United States. And it will be up to Republicans in the House and Senate to say the obvious: the Emperor has no clothes, much less the constitutional power to do what he says he is going to do.
What the Obama White House will not tell you is that they are deliberately and willfully usurping the role of the Congress. That is a difference - a very big difference - between what Obama is about to do and what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did.
It is if President Reagan woke up one fine morning and said "Gee, that Simpson-Mazzoli bill is stuck over there in Congress and they aren't listening to me. I think I'll just sign an executive order that makes Simpson-Mazzoli law. Gosh, it's good to be king!"
One particular warning that is made by Jonathan Turley is the obvious. What if, when there is a next Republican president - and inevitably there will be - and that President Republican looks to what he calls the "Obama Precedent?" What Mr. Obama is doing is opening the door to a future president who decides he's had just about enough of the abortion lobby and decides to sign an executive order that bans abortion. Or gay marriage. Or the capital gains or income taxes or any other law that irritates President republican as current immigration law irritates President Obama. What if a President Scott Walker unilaterally decides there is no right to a union? Can you imagine the liberal outcry? And it needs to be said that if that's how law is going to be made henceforth - liberals would be right to scream bloody murder.
Precedent, of course, is a considerable part of the way government operates. Indeed, precedent is exactly the argument being made by the AP with regard to the Reagan and Bush executive orders. They are precedent, the AP is saying. In fact the situations are entirely different. Not just apples and oranges, but apples and pigs that fly.
What President Obama is about to do is effectively declare himself the Emperor of the United States. And it will be up to Republicans in the House and Senate to say the obvious: the Emperor has no clothes, much less the constitutional power to do what he says he is going to do.
Lets get this off the table immediately. No. No, no and no again, no matter what the Associated Press says - no matter what the Obama minions say - Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush most assuredly did not do this. There is no precedent - period.
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
[/I]
By: Jeffrey Lord
November 19th, 2014
You just have to love how the Left plays their game.
As the nation braces for President Obama to issue a patently un-constitutional executive order granting amnesty to, as reports would have it some five million illegals, liberals across the spectrum rush to defend him by saying wait for it "Reagan did it too!" In fact, President Obama is saying this as seen here in USA Today.
Well, no. Reagan did most definitely not do it too.
Well, no. Reagan did most definitely not do it too.
But that doesn't stop the onslaught, particularly in the mainstream media. Case in point? This story touted by Obama aides by the Associated Press headlined: "2 GOP presidents acted unilaterally on immigration."
The presidents in question are Reagan and George H.W. Bush or, as the latter is known these days, 41.
The Left's storyline tries to tell Americans this, as expressed succinctly in the AP story:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration - and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986. Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.
Reagan's action was in accordance with the law - the statute. The very law that he had signed after - say again after - it was passed by Congress. What President Obama is about to do is unilaterally write the law - as if he were writing or re-writing a statute - all by himself.
Here's the sleight of hand, and the not very clever one at that. For this explanation we turn to two people who know exactly what they are talking about. First, Fox News legal beagle-in-chief Judge Andrew Napolitano. And the second, Jonathan Turley, the law professor from George Washington University who is not only a liberal but, as reported here in Politico has been hired by House Republicans to oversee the lawsuit to be filed by Republicans against President Obama for "executive overreach."
Judge Napolitano explains the difference to Megyn Kelly. In one word? The difference between what Reagan and Bush did and what Obama intends to do is the word "statute."
As everyone knows, in 1986 President Reagan signed into law the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, known officially as The Immigration and Control Act. We'll come back to that at a later time - the law did not work as Reagan intended (hint: No border security as promised). But for immediate purposes it is important to know that in signing the bill Reagan's presidential signature made the bill a law - a statute. Presidents cannot pass laws unilaterally. That's the job of the Congress per the Constitution, as every American school child is suppose to learn early on. What presidents can do - must do if a bill is to become law - is sign the bill. That's what Reagan did.
Presidents also have the job of interpreting the statute they are sworn to uphold. So sworn by the presidential oath in which they "do solemnly swear" to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States " and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What is the difference between Reagan and Obama? Reagan's action was in accordance with the law - the statute. The very law that he had signed after - say again after - it was passed by Congress. What President Obama is about to do is unilaterally write the law - as if he were writing or re-writing a statute - all by himself. As Judge Napolitano says:
When he suspends deportations, and when he imposes his own conditions on those suspensions, he's effectively re-writing the law. And that violates his oath to enforce and uphold the law as it's been written. The American people, the Congress and the courts need to know that we have a president who will enforce the law. When he says 'I will not enforce the law because I don't like it or I'm impatient', that doesn't wash under the Constitution.
The Judge goes on to say quite pointedly and specifically what is the Reagan/Obama difference:
Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has suspended some deportations. President Reagan did it to 100,000 families. He did it on the basis of the 1986 statute enacted by the Congress. President George H.W.Bush did it for 1.5 million people, only about 350,000 took advantage of it, and it was based on his interpretation of the statute. President Obama does not re-interpret a statute. He takes a statute and says 'I'm going to disregard it. I'm going to give you a better one. I'm going to set down a set of standards that I would have written had I been the law maker.' He's not the law maker, he's the law enforcer.'
Fox host Kelly, also a lawyer, asked the Judge: "At what point does he cross the clear line from discretion to completely ignoring his executive obligations to enforce the law?" Judge Napolitano correctly answers:
"When he grossly abuses his discretion, and when the effect of his discretion is to suspend a statute or to have the opposite effect of what the statute commands, that is a gross abuse. He will be playing with constitutional fire if he does this."
This was further emphasized by liberal law professor Turley, who underlined the basic principle at stake:
What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance. And that doesn't protect the branches. It's not there to protect the executive branch or legislative branch. It's to protect liberty. It's to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty. The American people have to force this issue
What President Obama is about to do is effectively declare himself the Emperor of the United States. And it will be up to Republicans in the House and Senate to say the obvious: the Emperor has no clothes, much less the constitutional power to do what he says he is going to do.
What the Obama White House will not tell you is that they are deliberately and willfully usurping the role of the Congress. That is a difference - a very big difference - between what Obama is about to do and what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did.
It is if President Reagan woke up one fine morning and said "Gee, that Simpson-Mazzoli bill is stuck over there in Congress and they aren't listening to me. I think I'll just sign an executive order that makes Simpson-Mazzoli law. Gosh, it's good to be king!"
One particular warning that is made by Jonathan Turley is the obvious. What if, when there is a next Republican president - and inevitably there will be - and that President Republican looks to what he calls the "Obama Precedent?" What Mr. Obama is doing is opening the door to a future president who decides he's had just about enough of the abortion lobby and decides to sign an executive order that bans abortion. Or gay marriage. Or the capital gains or income taxes or any other law that irritates President republican as current immigration law irritates President Obama. What if a President Scott Walker unilaterally decides there is no right to a union? Can you imagine the liberal outcry? And it needs to be said that if that's how law is going to be made henceforth - liberals would be right to scream bloody murder.
Precedent, of course, is a considerable part of the way government operates. Indeed, precedent is exactly the argument being made by the AP with regard to the Reagan and Bush executive orders. They are precedent, the AP is saying. In fact the situations are entirely different. Not just apples and oranges, but apples and pigs that fly.
What President Obama is about to do is effectively declare himself the Emperor of the United States. And it will be up to Republicans in the House and Senate to say the obvious: the Emperor has no clothes, much less the constitutional power to do what he says he is going to do.
Lets get this off the table immediately. No. No, no and no again, no matter what the Associated Press says - no matter what the Obama minions say - Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush most assuredly did not do this. There is no precedent - period.
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
