Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
Rescinding an unconstitutional executive order by means of a new executive order does not, by itself, constitute executive overreach, as he has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. I would, however, argue that simple rescission of President Obama's order is the limit of President Trump's authority, and that his delayed implementation of the rescission prolongs the original overreach, and is, itself, unconstitutional for that reason.
|
Yeah, ok, but DACA wasn't truly unconstitutional. You know this. Of course there's an interpretation to all of this nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. Constitution and Congress have, always and willingly, given the Executive Office this kind of power. It's a matter of prioritization and the president has the constitutional authority to prioritize an issue by executive order if the legislature can't get its shit together. It's not truly circumventing the legislative process. It's indeed part of the legislative process. It can be undone or blocked by the Supreme Court, and that too is technically constitutional.
Just saying "Daca was unconstitutional, even Obama admitted it" (quoting shittily-written headlines here, not you) is missing the point and simplifying the issue for effect. Emotional effect, actually, which you seem to frown on. The word "unconstitutional" is a reliable gut-punch for the public, and it's wielded far too often.
I'm pretty sure you know this. You've quoted Article II plenty of times. You know both the executive order and the potential rescinding of it are technically constitutional with loads of precedent.