Category Archives: Legal

The Cost

The Cost.

The post offers a historical view of a Black family’s alleged suffering under the weight of a racist NYPD and a judicial system that apparently does not (did not) work for Blacks. As a story based in fact, the post must be considered as compelling reading. Unfortunately, the author makes no attempt to analyze the complex relationship between law enforcement and the Black community. According to the recent CNN/ORC survey Americans are bitterly divided along racial lines over the question of race in the enforcement criminal laws and prosecution of violators. Are we as a society so afraid to ask why this divide really exists? This post asks the reader to conclude that Marilyn’s family’s suffering at the hands of the police and judicial system is due to the color of her skin. Are all of her family legal problems due solely to the fact that they are Black Americans? This does not seem to be statistically supportable. 

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and other like-minded progressive liberals frame today’s current debate over race in terms of understanding why Blacks feel the way they do. The mayor and others argue tailoring society’s workings to accommodate these sensitivities. Let’s ask ourselves a few questions; isn’t the NYPD a more multi-racial department than it was just a few years ago? Hasn’t the NYC criminal justice system become much more racially diverse over the years? As a life-long New Yorker and someone who has intimate knowledge of the judicial system I can honestly say that finding just White faces “in the system”  has become rare. 

Now, events are forcing liberals and Black activists to not only reexamine their alliance but to question each other’s moral authority to lead the debate over racism. Officers Liu and Ramos were gunned down this weekend while they sat in the patrol car in Bedford-Stuyvesant. No one can reasonably suggest that they were practicing racial profiling at the time of their deaths. Many commentators point out that the officers were not White but representatives of the NYPD’s racial and cultural diversification. The two officers lost their lives trying to stem Black on Black crime by providing a welcomed stepped-up police presence. 

An Executive Order or New Legislation?

AP News

AP News

For months President Obama warned Congress that it had to take steps to “fix the nation’s broken immigration system.” He never said specifically what he wanted Congress to do, besides to pass a bill. Whenever the opportunity presented itself the President publicly declared his intention to fix the problem on his own if the Congress failed to act. He never shied away from mentioning that he was ready to use an executive order to deal, what he claimed, were serious defects in the nation’s immigration laws and policy. He reminded his detractors that he had already used his powers to help the “Dreamers.” The defeats suffered by Democrats in the mid-term elections served as a signal to the President that his time to act had come.

The President informed the press that he would address the nation during prime time to announce his action on immigration. Always looking for free political publicity the President hoped that the big three television networks would have carried his speech but they all declined the invitation. The networks did not want to in be interrupted their scheduled shows. Regardless, the President’s show went on. President Obama announced that he would sign an order that would allow about 5 million undocumented aliens who were parents of children born in the United State or were parents of dreamers to avoid deportation and be eligible for work permits. His executive order remains in effect for only three years. You can listen to the entire address here.

Leading up to the speech the White House and some immigration advocates leaked details of the President’s contemplated executive order. Consequently, even before the President’s appearance on T.V. Democrats and Republicans had already begun arguing over the legality of the President’s order and it political ramifications. Some legal commentators have gone so far as to suggest that centuries of expanding presidential power coupled with congressional ineptitude has resulted in change in the balance of power. It seems that by either habit or default the Executive Branch has become more powerful than the Founding Fathers could have imagined.

Did President Obama overstep his legal authority in issuing his immigration executive order? I think he did. It is imperative that Congress act to restore the balance between the branches of government if America is going continue to have a healthy  democracy.

The constitution does not contain any specific clause on the issuance of executive orders. Regardless of the specific absence of any constitutional language it is universally agreed that a president may issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the Executive Branch manage their operations. Over the years Presidents have increased their usage of executive orders and expanded their reach. I think that this increase corresponds to the growing complexity of American society. These orders almost always related to the enforcement of an existing law. President Obama in the issuance of his executive order reasoned that he had the power not to enforce the laws of the land and to fundamentally alter existing law. Some constitutional experts argue that President Obama enacted new law under the guise of an executive order. I agree with these experts’ point of view.

We should not forget that when the President Obama was running for office he stated that a president should not invent powers that the he did not have. He campaigned on platform that criticized then President George Bush’s use of executive orders. The then candidate Obama believed that the office of the president should respect Congress’ purview. He was a true champion of the doctrine of separation of powers. He even rejected early calls to use his executive powers to bring about changes in the immigration laws. Was all of this just political double talk that should be excused? It has to be noted when issuing his recent executive order on immigration President Obama abandoned all pretense that he was ardent supporter of the separation of powers. He did not even try to hide the fact that he had done his best to bypass congress. It is this clear hypocrisy that has caused so much political consternation over the President’s initiative.

Two days before the President officially announced his executive order his right to issue the contemplated order was vigorously debated in the New York Times, Opinion Pages, under the Room to Debate Section. Six well know legal scholars split on the question of the President’s legal authority issue the order. The legal debate was spirited and supported by recognized legal authority. Each expert had their own particular legal reason for advocating their point of view.