My basic premise is can you use a President’s primetime speech in court? “Excuse me judge, don’t look at the written law. Read this WhiteHouse.gov speech transcript. This is what gives me the right to be here.” What if the primetime speech is in disregard for the written law and the person giving the primetime speech is the chief executive of national law enforcement. What standard does he use to govern by?
In a nation of laws, the laws are written down and are publically known so they can be observed and when accused you have the presumption of innocence and in a court of law you can reference the written law. In the national Federal system, the legislature enacts laws that the President then signs or vetos. When a written law is passed and is signed or passed to override a veto, then the executive branch is supposed to carry it out and the legislature can reference the written law when judging the prosecutors claims against the defendant.
Can a defendant use a President’s primetime speech in a court of law to void a written law passed by the legislature? Can a prosecutor accuse someone of breaking a President’s primetime speech claims or must it be written law?
No one faults kids (or anyone else) for wanting to get to the United States. We should fault a President that says the opposite of the written law in a primetime speech and then expects the country to respect it as if it were written law!
Written laws carries with it deliberation, voting and consideration of constituents.
As an example, look at this interview where Obama says Executive Action and prosecutorial discretion doesn’t apply to paying taxes. By what standard can he uses discretion to not enforce immigration laws, but condemns any future president from using discretion against broad categories of people that don’t pay taxes?