Justice For Yoo

Photograph of John Yoo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

John Yoo, law professor at UC Berkeley and former Justice Department lawyer, had a few things to say on Friday, regarding the constitutionality of the White House decision to defer enforcement of immigration law:



Obama has pursued a dangerous change in the powers of his office that disregards the Constitution’s careful separation of power between the branches of the federal government. The Constitution imposes on the president two clear duties – to protect the national security and to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama is the first chief executive since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly-enacted law simply because he disagrees with it, in clear defiance of his constitutional duty.

…

I took the view that the White House could refuse to carry out an unconstitutional law that infringed on the president’s commander-in-chief authority to manage war and defend the national security. … But the president cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he disagrees with it.

…

Worried about Hispanic support for his re-election, however, Obama simply decided to unilaterally enact his own legislation. But under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

…

There is a world of difference between putting aside laws that interfere with an executive response to an attack on the country, as in Sept. 11, 2001, and ignoring laws to appeal to a constituency vital to re-election.






Is Obama’s end-run around the Constitution (and the Congress), an effort to do what he thinks is right?  Or as Yoo suggests, is it simply pandering presidential politics?








Link to a study Yoo co-authored about the constitutionality of the deferment

info from huffpo.com








A Vote Of 246-1

.

Info excerpted from aol.com and nytimes.com:

The French Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a bill banning the burqa-style Islamic veil in public.  The new law also provides criminal penalties for those who force women to wear it. The leaders of both parliamentary houses said they had asked a special council to first ensure the measure passes constitutional muster.

The Senate voted 246-1  in favor of the bill. It will need President Sarkozy’s signature.

“This law was the object of long and complex debates,” the Senate president, Gerard Larcher, and National Assembly head Bernard Accoyer said in a joint statement explaining their move. They said they want to be sure there is “no uncertainty” about it conforming to the constitution.

The vast majority behind the measure say it will preserve the nation’s singular values, including its secular foundation and a notion of fraternity that is contrary to those who hide their faces. The law is very popular with the public, in that it defends traditional French values like women’s rights and secularism.

Other European countries, including Belgium, are considering laws against face-covering veils, seen as anathema to the local culture.