Rhetorical Analysis

President Barack Obama’s actions have been questioned since the day he took the oath of office. These three articles address the constitutional limitations to his actions on immigration. Each article produces an individual view to the subject, including different tones and opinions, while maintaining objectivity and using rhetoric to convey their ideas. With this specific language, the authors are able to portray their view on the president’s plan in such a way that draws the reader in and allows them to understand different points of view and beliefs on President Obama’s congressional actions. The first article “The Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders on Immigration Is Clear” by Eric Posner sets a clear attack towards opposing …show more content…
Constructed with an argumentative tone, Posner quickly disagrees with said views, and begins his own viewpoint with the word “yet.” This word gives the clear representation that his statements are of higher validity. The author goes on to describe Congress, and what they “typically” do with presidential actions and how they “allow” the President to set enforcement priorities “as he sees fit”, and can do so by not enforcing the law. This shows the acceptance of President Obama’s actions on immigration, and the use of “allow” aids to that support. Repetition is another use of language in this article through the usage of the word “sensible.” The author shapes the reader’s perception on the issue in a positive manner. He states that “every day, an executive branch official decides to drop an investigation” solely because it is the “sensible” thing to do. The reader can trust that the author is telling the truth because the harm caused by a particular legal violation “does not seem serious.” Additionally, “sensible” is …show more content…
Even before the article starts, the title is a clear representation of the criticism towards Obama’s executive orders. With the inclusion of the word “abuses,” the author suggests that the President is overstepping his boundaries and manipulating the law. The article is filled with rhetorical questions comparing Obama’s executive actions to attorneys prioritizing “prosecution of drug violations involving larger quantities, leaving smaller quantities to state prosecutors.” The comparison of the two suggests absurdity in new politics. Furthermore, the author uses constant repetition of “prosecutorial discretion” to point out the support Obama offers for his congressional arrangements. The language used in this article evokes fear in readers, who could think that Obama is not looking out for the good of the American people and even exploiting the law. Foley addresses both sides of the issue with the word “while,” explaining that past presidents have used prosecutorial discretion to delay deportation, but no other president “has claimed the constitutional authority to ignore immigration law because he believes it’s unfair as a matter of permanent national policy.” The article is completed with a suggestion of wrongdoing, claiming the disregard for law will