Why Conservatives Should Applaud Obama’s Decision to Ignore the Law

BobKrumm.com ^ | Bob Krum

[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.

[rmlew]

The brilliant JEffersonian military procurement policies, which led to DC being burned.

Jefferson was a limousine liberal.

[supercat]

I am fine with a “dictator” who can only say No.

I am not. A bad law, enforced consistently, will often end up doing less damage than a bad law enforced at the whim of an evil person. Among other things, if enforcing a bad law consistently would do too much damage, the law is apt to be repealed. By contrast, a bad law which almost nobody obeys can be a nasty tool in the hands of a dictator who can exempt his favored groups while enforcing the law against his enemies.

[montag813]

There is NO “law” here that Obama is refusing to “enforce”. He is making NEW law and countermanding the Constitution’s express power ceded to CONGRESS to establish rules of “Naturalization” in Article 1, Section 8. The author of this article is a propagandist. Don’t be fooled.

[Monorprise]

“”I am fine with a “dictator” who can only say No.”

I am not. A bad law, enforced consistently, will often end up doing less damage than a bad law enforced at the whim of an evil person. Among other things, if enforcing a bad law consistently would do too much damage, the law is apt to be repealed. By contrast, a bad law which almost nobody obeys can be a nasty tool in the hands of a dictator who can exempt his favored groups while enforcing the law against his enemies.”

You seem to be forgetting that here in the USA. we have something called common law. that means if a law is not enforced equally and consistently it can be presumed repealed or otherwise null. Although more likely it will be nullity on the grounds of a lack of equal protection.