Bachmann says Barack Obama can use executive order to give voting rights to illegal

Wow.

It would appear that not running for reselection has not slowed down Bachmann's penchant for claiming the untrue.

In an interview with the always highbrow and usually immensely accurate World Net Daily, she claimed that through executive order the president can grant voting rights to illegals. Except that, when examined, this appears to be rather inaccurate.

Indeed, several legal experts weigh in and state, unequivocally, that the vaunted legal mind of Bachmann is incorrect.

I do have to wonder if during her tenure in federal level politics Bachmann has ever used such things as truth and character. I can not seem to recall any such statement by her that would indicate she holds those qualities dear.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-barack-obama-can-use-executi/

She may not be running for another term in Congress, but Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is still making provocative statements.

In an interview with World Net Daily, a conservative Web publication, Bachmann urged House Republicans to oppose key features of a Senate-passed bill that allows a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants (a process that critics call amnesty).

Among other things, she warned that as soon as illegal immigrants become voters, they will vote for Democrats. Bachmann said that Republicans could lose the House in 2014 if they weren’t careful.

"Because, I think the president, even by executive order, could again wave his magic wand before 2014 and he’d say, ‘Now, all of the new legal Americans are going to have voting rights,’ " Bachmann said.

Bachmann’s office didn’t return a request for elaboration, but we found several legal experts to analyze her claim that Obama, or any president, could use an executive order to grant voting rights to anyone newly legalized under an immigration overhaul that emerges from Congress.

The short answer is that Bachmann is wrong.

The Constitution explicitly addresses who can vote for the U.S. House of Representatives (Article I, Section 2), for the U.S. Senate (the 12th Amendment) and for the presidency (Article II, Section 1). In each case, the Constitution says, the states -- not the president or Congress -- determines who can vote for these offices. To vote for Congress, for instance, a voter must be eligible to vote for representatives to the larger house of the state’s legislature.

Because of this, "the president can’t change the federal qualification directly, and he also could not, by executive order, change the qualifications for the state legislature," said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Generally speaking, only native-born or naturalized citizens can vote. Legal permanent residents (those with a green card) cannot. Once someone becomes a legal permanent resident, they generally have to wait five years before they are even eligible to seek U.S. citizenship. If they decide to apply for citizenship, they must pass a criminal background check and a civics test before becoming a citizen.

In fact, a law passed in 1996 and amended in 2000, says clearly that it’s "unlawful for any alien to vote" in a federal election.

"Any non-citizen who attempts to vote unlawfully is subject to criminal penalty under state and federal law," said Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California-Davis School of Law.

The Senate immigration bill would not grant voting rights to newly legalized immigrants immediately, and they would not be guaranteed the right to vote eventually. Rather, the bill sets up a pathway to citizenship -- a pathway that includes additional hurdles beyond the ones facing legal permanent residents seeking naturalization, such as paying a fine.

Once the law is enacted, Obama wouldn’t be able to do a quick about-face and use an executive order to strip out all the obstacles to citizenship and simply make illegal immigrants full citizens, Roosevelt and Johnson agreed. "It would violate the intent of, as well as the text of, the law passed by Congress," Johnson said.

Indeed, Obama has not demonstrated an inclination to push the envelope on changing voting rules for illegal immigrants. Under an Obama administration policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children can seek a delay from deportation, as well as permission to work legally. But the right to vote is not allowed under the policy.

So, Bachmann is flat wrong about Obama’s ability to turn illegal immigrants into voters. However, as we have sometimes noted, even her incorrect statements raise some interesting questions. As it turns out, Obama can’t issue an executive order that allows non-citizens to vote, but states may be able to extend voting rights to non-citizens, as long as doing so is not barred by the state’s constitution.

As recently as this year, the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona vs. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona that the Constitution "empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them" -- which only strengthens a state’s claim to the power to decide who can vote.

"I think a state would have a strong argument" that it could do this, Roosevelt said.

Of course, just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s likely. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, said states that try to allow non-citizens to vote would likely face a court fight. "They would have to pass a state law, and then go to court and argue that the state law is not pre-empted by the federal statute and that the federal law is an unconstitutional invasion of the state’s right to set qualifications," he said.

In general, states might have an easier time arguing that non-citizens should be permitted to vote in state elections. A state that sought to permit non-citizen voting in federal elections would face greater legal obstacles, experts say.

However, an even higher hurdle would be overcoming the idea, now deeply ingrained in the public mind, that there’s a bright line between citizens and non-citizens -- citizens vote, and non-citizens do not.

Today, very few non-citizens vote for any office, and the few who do only vote for local offices. For instance, non-citizens can vote in a handful of localities in Maryland, such as Takoma Park, and only for purely local positions. No state today allows non-citizens to vote in state-level elections, and the occasional efforts in state legislatures to expand voting to non-citizens have gone nowhere.

This was not always the case. Alien voting was permitted in many states early in the nation’s history, and while the idea waxed and waned over the years, the impulse to let aliens vote spread widely during westward expansion, when new territories were eager to attract residents, political scientist Jamin Raskin has written.

Such laws were reversed one by one during the first quarter of the 20th Century, due to World War I-era nationalism and fears about rising immigrant populations. The last state to allow alien voting, Arkansas, ended it in 1926. No state has resurrected it since.

Our ruling

Bachmann said "the president … by executive order" could grant voting rights to illegal immigrants newly legalized under pending legislation. That’s not true -- the states, not the president, have the power to determine who can vote. It’s right there in the Constitution. We rate Bachmann’s claim Pants on Fire.

 

In all seriousness, nobody believes anything this woman says. You might find some republicans who will claim the take her seriously out of party loyalty, but they're full of it. Everyone knows she's a compulsive liar and a very unpleasant person in general.

 

This is not so incredible as the imperious president has already used executive order illegally to override federal immigration law and bypass Congress. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/1...l-aliens-unconstitutional-say-law-professors/

 

Yup, Thats 100% true, and Bachmann is correct.

Obama wipes his ass with the constitution, and his left handed followers will pretend, that it doesnt happen, daily.

 

Actually, she is utterly incorrect, as has been verified by the citation in the OP.

Clearly there are state and federal laws in place that would prohibit the scenario claimed by Bachmann as possible.

 

Yes, arguing the president can't do something because he doesn't have the legal authority is effin' stupid as he's already given the finger to legalities so many times it's going to take a future team of historians their whole careers to figure things out.

Obama has violated federal immigration law, the War Powers Act, bankruptcy statutes and law, his own law (Obama Care, stimulus), international law (forcing down the jet of Bolivian president Morales in international air space) and so many other laws it calls for it's own thread.

Bizarre that some people would argue Obama can't do what he's been doing for years! Partisan love makes people stupid though.

 

mod edit>>>off topic/flaming

Clearly as has been laid out in the article cited in the OP is an argument by legal experts detailing why Bachmann's claim is wrong.

Fundamentally, it is wrong as states decide who can vote. Continuing to claim that Obama can do the impossible because your feel that in the past he has done something similar to this will not make your argument correct. Sitting there and saying anyone who doe snot agree with your factually inaccurate argument is stupid will not make you any more correct.

 

mod edit>>>response to off topic removed

Bachmann may indeed turn out to be wrong because she is speculating. But if you are trying to claim, against all fact and reason, that Bachmann is wrong because Our Dear Leader is constrained by the law roll then one has to be either very ignorant of this president's frequent disregard for legalities and our Constitution, or very, very dishonest.

I already included in my other post a very short list of instances in which Obama has simply given the law the finger and done as he pleases.
I suggest starting a thread in which Obama's many violations of law are listed as it should be instructive for those who don't seem aware of what's going on in their own nation.

While it seems unlikely Obama would take on this fight I have to point out one more time that, factually and indisputably, just because something is illegal doesn't mean Obama will respect the law.

One should look to Arizona to see how Obama sued the state because it was upholding federal immigration law (when Obama and Holder wouldn't) to see just how right I am, and how wrong you are.

 

obama used an executive order to violate US immigration law, and hand out citizenship like candy.

The primary duty of the president is to enforce the laws enacted by congress.

Obama refuses to due his duty, while he urinates on the constitution.

 

Yes, Michele....and John Quincey Adams was the only twelve year old Founding Father....and the Battle of Lexington and Concord took place in New Hampshire.

 

Michele is REALLY hoping that she gets a job on Fox News next year.....

thing is, I don't think Roger Ailes is going to risk any more embarassments on his network.

 

None of which seems to have anything to do with Bachmann's claim that somehow the president can grant voting rights to individuals. He simply can not. It was explained clearly in the article in the OP.

 

For instance, how about dealing with the fact that Obama forced Arizona to stop enforcing federal immigration law. Would you care to discuss that and the implications it might have for Obama's ability to pick and chose voting laws that reinforce his preference for making up immigration policy as he goes along?

 

So many crimes yet none of them being investigated by the house?
>>>mod edit>>>off topic/personal>>>

 

Why is the Loon even speaking, no less anyone listening to her, shouldn't she be working on staying out of jail right now, where did that money go?

 

You literally could not investigate a fraction of these illegalities given the foot dragging and stonewalling we've seen in Fast and Furious, Benghazi and IRS scandals.
That does not erase the many, many violations under the Obama regime.

 

And yet, the U.S. government deports 350k plus illegals every year and we have already had this discussion that the E.O was not overriding US law but prioritizing the resources of the agencies. The E.O., similar to a similar order by President George Bush on certain drug offenses, would not be deported if said illegal met the special provisions in the order per INA 244. If granted, the deportation will be suspended, not revoked under the law.

 

>>>mod edit>>>off topic/personal>>>quote removed
Well let's select just one concrete example and see: In violation of his own economic stimulus law and leading up to the 2012 elections the president simply stopped making quarterly progress reports as required under the legislation (because the news was so awful, presumably) and if I'm wrong you can show me where those reports are hiding...right? http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/19/obama-stops-issuing-stimulus-reports-as-required-by-law/

As a bonus point perhaps you can show me where Obama gets the authority to violate international law and force down the plane carrying Bolivian president Evo Morales (to search for Edward Snowden) from international air space?

 

Again, allow me to be clear and answer the question.

The thread topic is about Bachmann's claims regarding the president can, through executive order, somehow grant voting rights to certain individuals.. I have no desire to discuss the president's immigration policy in Arizona as it is competency unrelated.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, allow me to be clear and answer the question.

The thread topic is about Bachmann's claims regarding the president can, through executive order, somehow grant voting rights to certain individuals.. I have no desire to discuss the president's immigration policy in Arizona as it is competency unrelated.

 

I read that first part and got excited. I thought you were going to launch into a tirade about all the Wall St fraudsters that wreaked the global economy and got away with it. But then I realized you were going to just yammer on about stuff that has no relevance to 99.99999% of the American public.

 

We can relitigate reality if you wish but Obama is just releasing illegal immigrants criminals from jail
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gov-released-2-000-illegal-immigrants-article-1.1288799 so just how serious is he about the problem of the illegal immigrant flood?
The fact is the federal government would not allow the Arizona state government to enforce federal law (as on statute books) so this had nothing to do with "prioritizing" resources as Arizona was doing all the work and the feds are releasing immigrant criminals anyway. But nice try.

 

Your specific biased interests being representative of 99.999% of public interests, I assume.

 

So he's like every other President.
Gotcha.

 

Can you provide a list of previous presidents who enact executive order in direct violation of US law?

 

That isn't what you said. You said Obama "wipes his ass with the Constitution", and in that way I fail to see how he's any different from anyone else.
And let's not also pretend as if he hasn't had plenty of Republican enablers.

The most unconstitutional bill Obama has passed, the NDAA, was championed by Republican senators, so let's not pretend that one does what the others do not.