DACA has been ruled illegal

[Cactus Jack]

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was created in 2012 by an Executive Order issued by then President Barak Obama as a stopgap measure because congress could not agree on a comprehensive immigration reform program.

While DACA does not provide a pathway to citizenship for those who arrived in the US as the children of undocumented immigrants it does pause, until such time as a the comprehensive immigration reform program is passed, any action to deport the childhood arrival and allow them to work in the United States.

Whilst Donald Trump did promise to end DACA it's something he never got around to, the Supreme Court ruled against measures he planned not because it supported DACA in principle but because it ruled the process Trump put it place to dismantle it were arbitrary and capricious. The beneficiaries of DACA, known as Dreamers, number around 3.6 million and losing that many workers would seriously impact the US economy.

Current beneficiaries of DACA won't be affected for now, the decision merely prevents any new applications being processed, and the decision is expected to be appealed. In the meantime a child who was brought to the US as an infant in 2004 cannot work legally in the US, until further notice.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16/98713226 ... fe-for-now

[Maddog]

That's the problem with executive orders. They are far too often an attempt to skirt law.

Obama probably could have gotten congressional action on this when he was first elected. He chose to do Obamacare instead.

As we saw with Trump, EOs are not a good way to try to change things. They create confusion while getting tied up in the courts..

Presidents would be better suited to accept their limitations amd focus on legislation that congress will approve..

[Cactus Jack]

They don't skirt the law they are the law, just made by one of the different co-equal branches.

Courts have overturned plenty of laws passed by legislatures, in 2019 alone the Supreme Court overturned two federal laws and three state laws.

DACA was only supposed to be a short term measure, it wasn't even supposed to outlast the Obama administration but somehow comprehensive immigration reform and comprehensive tax reform never get done because the GOP alway used procedure to gum up the works

[Maddog]

They don't skirt the law they are the law, just made by one of the different co-equal branches.

Courts have overturned plenty of laws passed by legislatures, in 2019 alone the Supreme Court overturned two federal laws and three state laws.

DACA was only supposed to be a short term measure, it wasn't even supposed to outlast the Obama administration but somehow comprehensive immigration reform and comprehensive tax reform never get done because the GOP alway used procedure to gum up the works

Courts can overturn laws, but it's far more difficult.

It's why we have legislature.

Besides good entertainment at times.

[Cactus Jack]

It's not any more difficult for a court to overturn a legislature than it for them to overturn a executive order, in fact EOs - with the exception of Trump's - are generally well written and crafted by lawyers so it's quite difficult to overturn them.

Their weakness lies in the fact the next President along, if he isn't criminally incompetent like Trump, can usually find a way to revoke them. A President can't directly overturn legislation that has already been passed, although he can veto it before it's passed. That's why DACA was only supposed to be a short term measure

[Maddog]

It's not any more difficult for a court to overturn a legislature than it for them to overturn a executive order, in fact EOs - with the exception of Trump's - are generally well written and crafted by lawyers so it's quite difficult to overturn them.

Their weakness lies in the fact the next President along, if he isn't criminally incompetent like Trump, can usually find a way to revoke them. A President can't directly overturn legislation that has already been passed, although he can veto it before it's passed. That's why DACA was only supposed to be a short term measure

There will be plenty of challenges to Bidens EOs too.

Modern presidents of both parties rely on them far too much.

Biden has written over 50 already, while Washington did like 8 in 8 years.

I prefer my presidents to have the humility to understand that they aren't supposed to try to fix everything..

Unfortunately, I'll probably never see one like that in my life. So I'm stuck with petty little tyrants like Obama, Trump and Biden.

[Cactus Jack]

The increased use of EOs is a response to the increased use of procedural measures like the filibuster.

EOs are a part of the checks and balances - if Immigration reform passed there would be no need for DACA

[Maddog]

The increased use of EOs is a response to the increased use of procedural measures like the filibuster.

EOs are a part of the checks and balances - if Immigration reform passed there would be no need for DACA

But it didn't pass.

But things do pass, inspite of peoples belief that they don't.

Unfortunately, modern presidents think they have some sort of mandate to go around congress when it deadlocks. That deadlock is part of the process and I want it respected.

[Cactus Jack]

The increased use of EOs is a response to the increased use of procedural measures like the filibuster.

EOs are a part of the checks and balances - if Immigration reform passed there would be no need for DACA

But it didn't pass.

But things do pass, inspite of peoples belief that they don't.

Unfortunately, modern presidents think they have some sort of mandate to go around congress when it deadlocks. That deadlock is part of the process and I want it respected.

Fewer things pass.

Moscow Mitch's Mantra is 'They Shall Not Pass'.

He uses every procedural trick there is, in a system where the party the minority of people voted for already get a disproportionately large say, to fuck things up.

If all Conservatives are ever going to do is get in the way then fuck 'em. Use Executive Orders and use every legal procedural there is to stop them being overturned because at least that way at least progressives will turn out to vote in Presidential elections.

[Maddog]

The increased use of EOs is a response to the increased use of procedural measures like the filibuster.

EOs are a part of the checks and balances - if Immigration reform passed there would be no need for DACA

But it didn't pass.

But things do pass, inspite of peoples belief that they don't.

Unfortunately, modern presidents think they have some sort of mandate to go around congress when it deadlocks. That deadlock is part of the process and I want it respected.

Fewer things pass.

Moscow Mitch's Mantra is 'They Shall Not Pass'.

He uses every procedural trick there is, in a system where the party the minority of people voted for already get a disproportionately large say, to fuck things up.

If all Conservatives are ever going to do is get in the way then fuck 'em. Use Executive Orders and use every legal procedural there is to stop them being overturned because at least that way at least progressives will turn out to vote in Presidential elections.

Nope. Make congress pass laws. Or live with the consequences of them not doing so, and keep this crap out of the courts. It's better for everyone in the long run.

This way government only does things with overwhelming support.

[Cactus Jack]

For that to work you have to abolish the filibuster and the electoral college

[Maddog]

For that to work you have to abolish the filibuster and the electoral college

Wrong. For it to work all that has to happen is the executive branch enforces the laws passed, or not passed by the legislature..

If we have a "do nothing" congress, so be it. We can elect a different one every two years..

[Cactus Jack]

For that to work you have to abolish the filibuster and the electoral college

Wrong. For it to work all that has to happen is the executive branch enforces the laws passed, or not passed by the legislature..

If we have a "do nothing" congress, so be it. We can elect a different one every two years..

Not with the gerrymandering.

Unless you fix that too.

The USA in the same place that the Roman Republic was in during the Social Wars. A system that was built for a smaller counttry in a simpler time simply can't cope with the complexities it's now asked to bear and it requires a complete root and branch rethink. To start with abolish the electoral college and have direct elections for the office of President. Second have districts designed, probably by computers, to be as competetive as possible and third reduce the role of Senate significantly so that it can only delay legislation passed by the House for a maximum of two years - until the next election cycle.

The have term limits for everybody - no more than three consecutive four year terms for any office except the presidency which should be limited to no more than two complete terms, but must have served as either in Congress or as a State Governor before they can serve as President.

If it looks familiar to you, it should. I'll let you work out why.

[Maddog]

For that to work you have to abolish the filibuster and the electoral college

Wrong. For it to work all that has to happen is the executive branch enforces the laws passed, or not passed by the legislature..

If we have a "do nothing" congress, so be it. We can elect a different one every two years..

Not with the gerrymandering.

Unless you fix that too.

The USA in the same place that the Roman Republic was in during the Social Wars. A system that was built for a smaller counttry in a simpler time simply can't cope with the complexities it's now asked to bear and it requires a complete root and branch rethink. To start with abolish the electoral college and have direct elections for the office of President. Second have districts designed, probably by computers, to be as competetive as possible and third reduce the role of Senate significantly so that it can only delay legislation passed by the House for a maximum of two years - until the next election cycle.

The have term limits for everybody - no more than three consecutive four year terms for any office except the presidency which should be limited to no more than two complete terms, but must have served as either in Congress or as a State Governor before they can serve as President.

If it looks familiar to you, it should. I'll let you work out why.

Gerrymandering has been around 200 years.

What's more recent is presidents trying to amass too much power in the executive branch.

[Cactus Jack]

What you're doing is blaming the fire brigade for the fire.