If Obama is making law, that is unconstitutional. And if Obama is spending funds on something that was not authorized by Congress, that is also unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional whether or not Congress funded it.
So the house voting to defund something that is unconstitutional has zero effect, as Obama is already in violation of the Constitution and the house vote is unlikely to change it.
If Congress previously passed laws authorizing funds and Obama was using them for his dream act executive order, then the House vote to defund still no effect because it does need the Senate and the President’s signature to modify previously passed law.
Nonetheless, Obama’s executive order directs the executive branch to only selectively enforce the law. In other words, Congress has funded enforcing the law. Obama is not doing it. It doesn’t cost anything to not do something.
So how do you defund non-enforcement of a law, when it didn’t cost anything to not enforce the law in the first place?
And I was falling for it.
Propaganda.