On Tuesday, Amy Dardashtian, an attorney and blogger for Huffpost Politics, explains that the Supreme Court’s decision on the challenge to Obama’s attempted use of executive power to reform immigration law could answer monumental constitutional questions on the power and duty of the President. The hysterical negative reaction of the MSM to Trump’s plan to enforce the law and deport illegal aliens (and its generally positive coverage of Obama’s amnesty plan) might lead the casual observer to think the Constitution was on the side of Obama, not Trump. Not so fast, Dardashtian says: “Just look at the Constitution.”
Obama has promised to give benefits to illegal aliens that Congress has denied them, while Trump is promising to enforce the laws that Congress has written and have been signed into law by earlier presidents. Article 2 of the Constitution gives the law-making power exclusively to Congress.
“Trump is promising to enforce the current immigration law. That’s what this Supreme Court case is all about. Presidents are forbidden from making the law, however, they are required to enforce it.”
An excellent article on this important case for non-lawyers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-dardashtian/scotus-is-trumps-immigrat_b_9066476.html
Posted 1/30/16 by Margaret Hull