You're watching...
Rep. Steve King lays out case against decision to stop deporting young illegals
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
There is no follow this morning over the president's decision to stop deporting young illegal immigrants.
Many critics argue the president is playing politics with the matter including.
Florida senator Marco Rubio.
He's basically taking a very significant issue that needs to be solved in a long term way that's measured reasonable and balanced.
And decided by edict by by fiat basically to solve -- the short term which happens to coincide with the November election.
That's I think in the long term is gonna have some very significant implications on the so you do you believe he did it for political reasons I don't think there's any doubt about that now if you're one of the kids it's being helped you know so what I mean that's when things supposed to work right.
At least that's how some of those folks -- feel but I would just tell you do you -- -- -- and is anyone watching this.
That doubts that it was for political reasons that interview obviously we shall be last night our congressman Steve -- with me now it's threatens to the president.
Over the immigration -- -- Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and the vice chair in the subcommittee on immigration -- welcome back here to.
America's -- -- -- -- -- -- -- your case in a moment here but what do you think about the word that Marco Rubio put out late last night that he will not pursue.
What he had planned to pursue regarding immigration in America.
Well as I listen to senator rubio of not mean I agree with this statement I think his analysis correct that's making me clearly understands this is politically motivated on the part of the president.
That there are long term serious implications for president that would overreach and try to rule by edict.
I agree with all of that I would just add a little bit more constitutional outrage to senator rubio is response.
-- as we take an oath to uphold the constitution to.
Our founding fathers envisioned that each branch of government would jealously protect the authority granted to within the constitution.
And this legislature has an aggressively enough defended its authority against sometimes in the history the -- of the judiciary.
And now in this case the the vast and insulting overreach of the president of the United States from the executive branch it in a word is rubio right to pull back yes -- -- I think given the arena that he's in right now yes I think he is right to do that okay now on your matter you want to sue the president.
On what grounds.
-- out on that on the separation of powers issue.
Mend it is very clear article -- grants the authority to legislate to build through the congress to the legislative branch.
And of course article two is the executive branch -- says that -- the president takes an oath of office to have to uphold this constitution and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Not created by the president and not ignored by the president and he does both of these things we've had a discussion about prosecutorial discretion.
When that when the president has decided that he would select individuals that would be exempted from enforcement.
I might name his -- as -- as two of those that have been essentially exempted from immigration law.
But this is a case where he creates several classes of people.
And apparently a work permit all by presidential edict or memorandum that is directed to get by get an -- -- -- This congress cannot tolerate the president manufacturing immigration law it's one thing to ignore -- and individual cases.
It's another to set up a policy.
That there are they will not enforce the law that's a violation of his oath of office -- Let me take you back thirteen years your home state of Iowa Tom Vilsack was the governor back then I was Agriculture Secretary.
You say when you sued him you were success -- and that is grounds for doing it yet again.
-- -- -- Village certainly inform me on the separation of powers issue.
Then governor Vilsack he cited that he could rewrite the civil rights section of the code of Iowa by executive order.
And the attorneys at the time told me that I really didn't understand it was carefully and deftly drafted to be constitutional.
I said no you can't tolerate that kind of authority assume by the executive and we went to court in the case of king vs Vilsack is in the books it was clearly separation of powers.
And and you want a president or an executive cannot legislate by executive order by memorandum or by presidential edict.
Or the president Obama's case now by press conference either which he attempted to do two quick questions then what will you file.
Well as soon as possible but -- right now we're still putting together -- legal team and still putting together the standings argument you're you're going forward you're not stopping here.
-- I don't really apparent to sue the president and I am preparing to file how do you believe this decision impacts November.
Well you know I haven't thought about every much I at this is this is a constitutional issue and what regardless of the timing in the politics or the policy.
If this were something else if he directed let's just say Tim Geithner not to enforce.
The makes the high terrorists collection.
Then then it would also be the same cause we have to stand up and defend the constitution and this is this Paramount for the deaths are never country regardless of the politics -- Steve King thank you we'll see how far you get appreciate your time to.
