Over hos det glimrende konservative National Review skriver den juridiske lektor Josh Blackman om grænsen for USAs præsidents diskretionære kompetencer i form af executive actions i lyset af Obama-forvaltningens Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), der skal sikre visum-løse immigranter mod deportation: Er handlingsplanen konform med lovgivningen, eller har præsidenten misligholdt sin pligt til at sikre, at lovene overholdes.

On Tuesday, the Court ordered that “the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: ‘Whether the Guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.’” With this decision, the justices directed the president to justify DAPA and prove that his executive action on immigration is consistent with congressional design, not an effort to rewrite the law. Based on my initial research, this is the first time the Supreme Court has ever asked the president to state this constitutional case.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.