Thanks.
First, just FYI and others’ benefit, what you have now provided does not support the claim that G.W. Bush selectively enforced laws. However, it does seem (at first glance) to demonstrate some have in the past, all the way back to nearly the founding of this country.
So, I consider this an intellectual gain, as I at least learned something new today.
Secondly, there is this portion in what you just cited: “So, can the Administration refuse to defend a duly enacted law? Yes they can and they have provided (1) there is considered belief the provision in question is unconstitutional and (2) they reasonably believe their view will ultimately prevail upon judicial review.”
Now, what you cited was taking about Obama not defending DOMA in court, and also about him not enforcing current immigration law. The analysis of both situations I’ll leave to the reader to read for themselves however I think it’s also important to note that Obama is also selectively enforcing parts of the very law that unofficially bears his name. There is no way arbitrarily enforcing (or not enforcing in this case) the employer mandate (and maybe even the individual mandate if the Republicans really are that stupid) can or does fall into #1 above. At least, can you or anyone honestly believe Obama is going to claim that his own law, or portions thereof, are unconstitutional?
No, he’s not enforcing the employer mandate because it’s not convenient for him or his party, not because he believes it’s unconditional! And that, is NOTHING like any president has ever done.
And I’m quite certain Obama wouldn’t want #2 above. After all, by sheer dark magic (or blackmail) he somehow got Roberts to jump ship. I doubt he could repeat that again.
So he is acting in a way contrary and more recklessly than any president has in history, Democrat or Republican.
That’s just a fact, and to say otherwise is just playing into his relativistic plan that would suggest, “Hey guys, I’m not doing anything previous presidents haven’t done”.
You definitely rushed the above but I understand what you were trying to say.
Obama is not enforcing immigration for those who apply (who are probably are not convinced criminals) because it was politically advantageous for him to do that especially in an election year 2012.
And since it seemed to work he gets to continue it four more years. Did Romney even ever challenge that in the race?
Republicans like Bush can claim some part of a bill (or many bills) is unconstitutional in his eyes and if he did the constitution gives him a specific remedy, the veto. But that would have been very inconvenient for him to lose the whole bill that has stuff he needs. So he signed it saying "I will ignore these parts"
Now watch, if a GOP ever wins the White House you can bet that he will take advantage of the imperial presidency created by Obama, and I bet Levin advises him to..