U.S. might take more steps to relax Cuba embargo

[El Presidente]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/04/us-cuba-usa-idUSKCN0ST2K920151104#32jmMAR9WSzpFEhp.97

The article really doesn't tell us anything new but I wanted to raise a question with those in the know.

For the legally minded here...How far can the President go in relation to relaxing the Embargo using Executive powers alone?

[luv2fly]

From what i do understand about executive orders and that is not a lot, the president will go as far has his legal advisors tell him he can go. I think congress can/will challenge if they feel he has overstepped or his order is in direct violation of the Helms-Burton Act. He can't give an executive order saying we can travel as tourists as that would be a direct violation. A very gray area those powers. It seems executive orders have been a sore subject with congress for as long as I can remember.

Ultimately, if he ruffles the Congressional feathers enough, they may try and hit the brakes. Example could be blocking funding and confirmation of an ambassador which I think some have said they were prepared to do now.

[NSXCIGAR]

The Embargo was an act of congress and therefore congress must act to alter or end it. Most of the changes in Cuba policy thus far have been carried out by congress and very few have been strictly executive branch actions. However, there appear to be quite a few actions the president could take to reduce certain restrictions for certain parties.

The embargo is chiefly a commercial embargo and trade embargo however the US gov't is also able to control personal travel by exercising control over economic activity, i.e. money must be spent on travel to Cuba and money must be spent on room & board while there so therefore the US can regulate individuals' travel there.

Interestingly, Kennedy did, via executive order in 1962, widen the scope of the embargo multiple times to include any and all trade except food and medicines. I believe previously it did not include goods finished in other countries but made using Cuban parts. I'm not sure if the President could effectively reverse those particular features. That may be something that can be done.

There are several interesting features of the embargo. The Helms-Burton Act of 1992 actually allows the US gov't to prohibit any foreign company that trades with Cuba to do business in the US. It's rarely if ever enforced however the law does exist. The US apparently strongarmed Europe into not challenging the law by promising to negotiate some "solution" which isn't known.

Any ship docked in Cuba is prohibited from docking anywhere in the US for at least 6 months after leaving Cuba. This apparently can be lifted via the President of the US through waiver action every 6 mos.

[perkinke]

The short answer is "as far as the public will support." This is the crux of the checks and balances system. Congress can make all the laws they want, but it is up to the executive branch to enforce them. The president can quite easily direct agencies to turn a blind eye towards violations, as presidents have done in the past with the FDA, FCC and probably more than a few justice department investigations. The Supreme Court could slap him on the wrist, but they have only the power of persuasion. As Andrew Jackson said in the 1830's when the Marshall court ruled that the Cherokee removal was unconstitutional: "mr. Marshall has made his ruling, now let us see him enforce it." So the bottom line is that if the public is as apathetic as it seems, outside of Florida anyway, the president could do away with all enforcement and effectively, if not legislatively, end the embargo.

[luv2fly]

Agree, he could make it useless and a law on paper only. If there is no will to enforce the law, then it becomes a useless law.

[NSXCIGAR]

Agree, he could make it useless and a law on paper only. If there is no will to enforce the law, then it becomes a useless law.

The President could do that, but really only for personal travel/trade. For commercial trade the outrage in congress from some of these Florida/Miami congresspeople who would accuse the President of failing to enforce the law would be enormous and be very bad politically. Keeping the embargo intact and strictly enforced is their mission in life down there...

[NSXCIGAR]

The short answer is "as far as the public will support." This is the crux of the checks and balances system. Congress can make all the laws they want, but it is up to the executive branch to enforce them. The president can quite easily direct agencies to turn a blind eye towards violations, as presidents have done in the past with the FDA, FCC and probably more than a few justice department investigations. The Supreme Court could slap him on the wrist, but they have only the power of persuasion. As Andrew Jackson said in the 1830's when the Marshall court ruled that the Cherokee removal was unconstitutional: "mr. Marshall has made his ruling, now let us see him enforce it." So the bottom line is that if the public is as apathetic as it seems, outside of Florida anyway, the president could do away with all enforcement and effectively, if not legislatively, end the embargo.

It is true that the Supreme Court cannot force the president to do anything. The only recourse against a president is congressional impeachment. The Andrew Jackson example came at a time when it wasn't fully established that the SC was the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. Each of the three branches was considered an equal arbiter of questions of constitutionality. Jackson also defied the SC when he acted to abolish the Second Bank of the US.

It would really be up to the US Attorney General whether or not to pursue such cases. He can direct his DAs not to file charges against violators. The FBI and Customs could still pursue the cases but why would they if prosecutions aren't taking place? We saw that when Holder declared no more resources would be allocated to enforcing federal marijuana laws in medical marijuana states but that was a lie. He cannot allocate resources personally but prosecutions continue and therefore the FBI and ATF continues to pursue them.

[perkinke]

True, but the AG is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the president, after congressional confirmation of course. Same with the directors of the fbi and homeland security (which I believe is over the atf and ice, but I may be mistaken) Presidents since Nixon have ensured that the agency directors know who is boss, Hoover taught them that lesson.

[NSXCIGAR]

True, but the AG is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the president, after congressional confirmation of course. Same with the directors of the fbi and homeland security (which I believe is over the atf and ice, but I may be mistaken) Presidents since Nixon have ensured that the agency directors know who is boss, Hoover taught them that lesson.

Sure, I suppose the AG would simply carry out the president's wishes in that regard. I don't suppose any impeachment could be brought against a president whose AG simply chose not to prosecute certain crimes. In that sense, failing to uphold an act of congress should be distinct from failing to uphold the constitution itself as sworn to by the president and would ostensibly be an impeachable offense.

Even if embargo violations simply went unprosecuted by the AG I doubt any serious commercial activity would take hold. How many businesses would feel comfortable investing and committing to Cuba when the prosecution of trade is at the sole discretion of an AG? And one that's likely to change as soon as a different AG comes along?

However, the AG declaring embargo violations would not be prosecuted would be no problem for individuals or smaller businesses that could hedge their bets if the policy changed abruptly. Again, the only downside would be some political upheaval similar to what the president is facing now by failing to enforce certain immigration laws, but to a much lesser extent. The Cuban embargo is much less of a hot-button issue outside of Miami and I think most Americans would have no fundamental issue with effectively ending it.

[ElPuro]

And the house of cards crumbles...

[SCgarman]

All I can say is "Relaxing" the embargo and "Ending" the embargo are two different animals.

Obama has a year remaining and then he is gone.

The next POTUS might and can reverse everything Obama has tried to accomplish, you never know.

All we can do is speculate, nothing more.

[luv2fly]

Agree. My wife is a lawyer so I asked her thoughts. Basically she said the same things said here. It really is speculation until it happens.

[msm1771]

Makes no difference for me being in the US. Half the reason I didnt like CC was the qc and fakes. Now that I order through Rob here I cant really ask for much more. Besides siglo vi

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scardinoz]

By their very nature, executive orders are supposed to concern how the law is executed and enforced, not what the law is. For example, he could tell the treasury department to stop pursuing individuals and only pursue corporations who violate the embargo (which I believe is the current attitude). Even this, though, has to be exercised with caution as congress will lose their minds if he goes too far. They may lose their minds anyway, if it is politically expedient.

[CanuckSARTech]

He can go as far as he wants (except for the wholesale repealing of the Helms Burton Act - though he can order all aspects of it effectively dead), until Congress challenges it and/or pushes back, and/or until the U.S. Supreme Court says it was an Executive Order overstepping the bounds.

[JackFNQ]

You'll know the embargo is over when there is a Cuban central bank.

[cigarbigboy]

As far as Obama wants. Legal has nothing to do with it when it comes to what Obama wants to do.

[Duxnutz]

As far as Obama wants. Legal has nothing to do with it when it comes to what Obama wants to do.

Let's just hope Trump doesn't get in. My wife actually enjoys the right to vote.

[NSXCIGAR]

New poll showing "heartland" (middle-state conservative-leaning or independent) US voters in favor of restoring economic and travel ties with Cuba:

http://news.yahoo.com/voters-four-heartland-states-favor-obama-policy-cuba-150627760.html