Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Monday, June 18, 2012 8:19 pm

“Irony has been drawn and quartered”


At least at first glance, President Obama’s executive order on immigration appears to be 1) constitutional, 2) well within the scope of precedent with respect to White House executive orders, 3) humane and 4) quite possibly a good idea.

This has not prevented some people from complaining about it. I’m willing to be convinced it’s wrong and even unconstitutional if someone can come up with the right evidence. What I’m not willing to do is be lectured by the fact-challenged, torturerotic Wansee groupie John Yoo:

President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).

Zandar dismisses this with the contempt it deserves:

Yoo’s own theories on the plenary executive are phenomenally daft, but claiming that the President has the authority to declare unending bloody war on tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan citizens but doesn’t have the authority to direct enforcement procedures of executive branch agencies is so absolutely douchetronic that Yoo probably needs to waterboard himself for a while just to balance the scales of the universe.

And, finally, Yoo demonstrates not only his ethical illiteracy and constitutional ignorance, but also a fundamental inability to count.

So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices.

The federal law in question was the DREAM Act, a congressional policy choice that passed the House and was filibustered in the Senate despite getting a 55-vote majority. In the Framers’ day, numbers like that meant it could become law if the president signed it or declined to veto it. But that fact doesn’t prevent Yoo from lying, once again, about the Framers:

That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.

Bitch, please. Google “Bush signing statements” and then pull your head out of your rear end and get on the first airplane to The Hague — preferably in irons.

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,359 other followers

%d bloggers like this: