Does this make sense to anyone or does it confuse everyone?
The issue with DACA is that it’s not statutory, which — theoretically, anyway — means any succeeding president can impose his/her own prosecutorial discretion in the same manner. Trump tried that by issuing countermanding EOs, which courts have blocked through some legal sophistry. The basic question comes down to this: if Obama could legally do this through an EO, then Trump can legally undo it the same way. If Trump can’t undo it with an EO, then Obama couldn’t legally do it in the first place without congressional action, which then makes DACA illegal anyway. Thus far, courts have instead opted for outcome-based decisions which necessarily impede presidential authority, but only for some presidents.
- StephenWeinsteinLv 71 month ago
It makes sense to anyone who has even a vague familiarity with the law.
Presidents can issue a binding EO only if they follow the legal requirements for the process; they cannot do it in an "arbitrary and capricious" way.
Trump did not do it in the same way as Obama.
Obama did it in the way that it can be done legally.
Trump did it in an illegal way.
Trump didn't undo it in the way that Obama did it.
And yes, just as Trump's way was illegal, it would have been illegal for Obama to do in that way, which is why he didn't.
Courts have opted for following the law, for all Presidents, which means allowing an EO from a President that issues an EO in the legal way, but not for a President who does it in an illegal way.
This confuses only someone who doesn't understand the difference between "legal way" and "illegal way".
- 1 month ago
If the courts were not bent, that would be the case