5 ms·

Interesting to note the DACA EO was signed when Democrats held both houses of congress and the White House. They could've easily passed it as a law but the cons

Interesting to note the DACA EO was signed when Democrats held both houses of congress and the White House. They could've easily passed it as a law but the constitutional challenges would have probably made it a short lived law. Instead, they took their chances with the EO route, opened the pandoras box and now Trump is trying to close it. This is what happens when you decide an EO is better than trying to pass actual bills that then become laws. Trump is doing a lot of the same. Sucks when elected officials are content to write part-time law in lieu of bills that require bipartisan support, communication and actual work to get passed.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> They could've easily passed it as a law No, they couldn't, because they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster; having lost some Republican Senate support since the time shortly before when the bill past the House but died with 55 votes for and 41 against in the Senate. > but the constitutional challenges would have probably made it a short lived law. The Constitutional argument (whether this is correct or not, it is the argument that is made) against DACA is not that it isn't within Congress’ power to do it (it very clearly is), but that the EO is not authorized by existing statute and, as such, impermissibly usurps Congress’s Article I powers over immigration. So, no, it wasn't done as an EO to avoid Constitutional challenges, those challenges exist specifically because it was done as an EO. It was done an EO because the votes didn't exist in Congress, particularly the Senate.
- masonic 9y ago
  No, they couldn't, because they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster Wrong on multiple counts. 1) they did have a 60-vote supermajority[1] for much of 2009-2010, given that the two "independents" always caucused with Democrats, and 2) the filibuster threshold was just a Senate rule that could be changed at any time by the majority (and the Democrats later did exactly that). 3) at least four[2] Republican senators overtly supported amnesty and would not have supported a filibuster of any immigration measure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#P... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(immigration) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(immigration)
  - tptacek 9y ago
    The DACA EO happened in 2012, not 2010. It's not very interesting to argue whether Congress should have tackled a particular issue earlier than later; we could go round and round on that ad infinitum.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> They could've easily passed it as a law No, they couldn't, because they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster; having lost some Republican Senate support since the time shortly before when the bill past the House but died with 55 votes for and 41 against in the Senate. > but the constitutional challenges would have probably made it a short lived law. The Constitutional argument (whether this is correct or not, it is the argument that is made) against DACA is not that it isn't within Congress’ power to do it (it very clearly is), but that the EO is not authorized by existing statute and, as such, impermissibly usurps Congress’s Article I powers over immigration. So, no, it wasn't done as an EO to avoid Constitutional challenges, those challenges exist specifically because it was done as an EO. It was done an EO because the votes didn't exist in Congress, particularly the Senate.

masonic 9y ago
No, they couldn't, because they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster Wrong on multiple counts. 1) they did have a 60-vote supermajority[1] for much of 2009-2010, given that the two "independents" always caucused with Democrats, and 2) the filibuster threshold was just a Senate rule that could be changed at any time by the majority (and the Democrats later did exactly that). 3) at least four[2] Republican senators overtly supported amnesty and would not have supported a filibuster of any immigration measure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#P... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(immigration) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(immigration)
- tptacek 9y ago
  The DACA EO happened in 2012, not 2010. It's not very interesting to argue whether Congress should have tackled a particular issue earlier than later; we could go round and round on that ad infinitum.