Posted on 06/17/2012 12:04:31 PM PDT by lbryce
Republicans upset over President Obama’s decision to ignore the illegal immigration of hundreds of thousands of young foreigners should be overjoyed by the precedent the President sets. Patrik Jonsson of the Christian Science Monitor asserts that by ignoring Congress, Obama is “reshaping the power of the presidency.” Actually, he is just re-asserting a power the presidency had long exercised until relatively recent history. While I happen to believe that the United States would be better off with greatly expanded legal immigration opportunities, even those conservatives of a more xenophobic persuasion should find plenty to like about Obama’s Friday announcement.
The decision to cease enforcing particular provisions of immigration law was not, as some commentors have asserted, a presidential usurpation of legislative power. The Executive branch is not making law, as was the case when it attempted to declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant in violation of the powers granted to the EPA by Congress. Instead, this is a case where the President disagrees with a law on the books, and thus unilaterally decides not to carry it out.
We have a long history of a passive aggressive presidency. Thomas Jefferson refused to spend $50,000 to buy gunboats to patrol the Mississippi River and America’s border with the French colony on its western bank when his purchase of Louisiana in 1803 made moot that border. I’m sure there was some Congressman in whose district those boats were to be made who objected to this first use of presidential impoundment power. Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were both famously cool toward the idea of enforcing the Volstead Act outlawing alcohol. Grover Cleveland didn’t fill numerous appointments, believing that government payrolls had grown bloated through patronage and spoils.
(Excerpt) Read more at bobkrumm.com ...
“Free men should always question whether or not a law still makes sense. And if one determines that it does not, it is his duty to violate it.” That statement is ludicrous and is applicable only when anarchy prevails. Failure to enforce existing law merely makes a mockery of all laws. Obama may as well pick another segment of society and exempt them from stopping at stop signs when they don’t see any traffic coming. Just exempt California from Federal Drug laws. Why not exempt a few million people from the IRS code? Apparently, he has already exempted a number of people from the National Security regulations of the Executive branch. Selective enforcement of the laws, passed by Congress and signed into law by the Executive, is then the law of the land. His job is to enforce those laws. Not just the ones he likes. He should be impeached now.
I am fine with a “dictator” who can only say No. That can only impose inaction of his and only his government. Such a man is of course not a dictator by any traditional understanding.
For inaction is not a usurpation, but a failure to render services either lawfully authorized such as those mentioned in the Constitution, or unlawfully usurped such as those not mentioned in the Constitution.
Either way failure to render is not a usurpation but rather an end to usurpation and a failure to provide contracted service.
I can live with that risk just as we already live with that risk in regard to the Federal Employees in black robes, the House, the senate, and of course where our States are involved them as well.
The design of our system is to insure freedom not government services. that means Our system came built with numerous redundant fail-safe mechanics designed to bring it to a stop rather than seriously injure our liberty with a distributive “service” (IE: act).
Dictators are dictators largely because nobody can stop their acts. Lots of people can stop Obama’s act here, they simply can’t make him act.
This is taking the cream of the illegal immigrant crop (educated and speaks English) and hamstringing them with work permits that expire in two years. Even a Dreamer with a college degree would have trouble finding work that Americans would do. So the Dreamers will be in competition with American Citizens entering or re-entering the work force.
This is taking the cream of the illegal immigrant crop (educated and speaks English) and hamstringing them with work permits that expire in two years. Even a Dreamer with a college degree would have trouble finding work that Americans would do. So the Dreamers will be in competition with American Citizens entering or re-entering the work force.
They will howl when a future president decides not to enforce portions of EPA or endangered species laws.
He’d never have the guts. The man won’t get his hands dirty unless it’s to fight conservatives.
...and an overt violation of the president's oath.
America is in bad shape. If its not bad enough that democrats elect a dictator, now “conservatives” think they want one too.
There were Jews who voted for Hitler because he could get things done.
Yes, it is sad. We’ve just got to try to keep whacking these moles every time they pop up, and hope that we knock some sense into them. What else can we do?
Two groups of slaves yelling back and forth across a shared fence about who is free.
Or two prison gangs warring over who gets to run the cafeteria.
People have been saying this crap for years. But IT DOESN’T WORK.
Dem presidents do one thing, republican presidents do another. When republican presidents go anywhere near what dem presidents did, the dem media shuts down all debate and alinskyizes the world until they get their screaming crying way.
Anyone who still thinks this “let dems win then we can win later” tactic works is either (a) less than 30 years old (b) has only been paying attention for less than 10 years
I don’t think the presdendcy is 1/3rd, while its 1 of 3 federal branches the founders made it clear that by playing it 2nd above the judicial and BELOW the congressional branch they were making a statement in the hierarchy of its authority.
But i do think the presidency like the leglsator and the judicial branch and even the States to the extent their involved can refuses to carry out certain functions they find to be unlawful.
Id rather have government depended upon agreement among the 3 than government depended upon any one of the 3.
Never forget the object “checks and balances” is to protect the individual from government not to insure the government never fails to run/act.
I don’t see how the dems are going to get there way.
1: Our States are still enforcing emogration laws Obama can’t stop that.
2: Democrats are for big Government which means they care if Government ever stops its activities(which largely consist of robing us to feed them). We Conservative don’t care so much.
In trying to get a small victory Obama has led the left upon a field which greatly favors us, and disadvantages him. We are saying that we should
A: Not let him leave that field.
B: Take advantage of his huge Strategic blunder and hammer the left’s beloved big goverment with it.
This is by no means letting them win, the ground he has stepped upon is very much unfriendly to his ideology.
If Obama is providing a service not authorized by existing law, then he is breaking the law.
If Obama is simply not providing a service authorized by existing law, then he is simply failing to enforce that law.
Doing nothing is not a usurpation, and I remind you he is not the only player on the field. We have state & local governments capable of enforcing laws as well should they consent to them.
emogration?
“We have state & local governments capable of enforcing laws as well should they consent to them.”
Exactly right. Just like the feds used to enforce dope growing laws in CA when the locals wouldn’t. That game works both ways.
For one it is not legal for Obama to give theses aliens green cards simply for him to fail to deport them. (Which to be frank is what he has been doing for the past 3 years anyway unofficially).
Simply being a bad president and sleeping on the job(or constant vacationing in his case) is not in itself a usurpation. A usurpation consist only in actions which violate rights not ceded to the same government in its Constitution. (IE: Unauthorized acts of the federal Government in this case)
States act similarly. They can enforce Federal acts if they consent to them, or they can simply stand back and do their own thing leaving Washington to enforce its own rules.(largely leaving the same unenforced when it comes to domestic matters)
Their refusal or “neglect” to help Washington do its own job is not in itself illegal nor is it particularly uncommon. Their independent acts in areas forbidden to them however is illegal.
In other-words a State can arrest & jail illegal aliens(largely the only realistic way its going to get done) but not if Washington changes the Law to make them legal. Obama as president similarly can neglect to aggressively go after illegal aliens, but he can’t go after Ohioan Joe the plummer because there is no law that makes Ohioan Joe’s present and work in his own state of Ohio illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.