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.

[lbryce]

FTA:Instead of complaining about Obama’s decision, Conservatives should applaud anything which increases government inaction. Meanwhile Democrats who applaud the President’s decision for the short-term advantage it might give them, should be very wary of handing a precedential hammer to a future Republican president who could use it to smash big government.

[rurgan]

Democrats tried to pass the Dream Act which is Amnesty for illegals. Republicans blocked it in Congress. Now Obama passes the Dream act by edict . Obama did this against the will of congress and of the American people. Obama is illegally aiding the foreign invasion. This act by Obama is treason, illegal, and an injustice. Obama must be impeached. Now every 3rd world moron who is under 30 will move to America. It is a dictator and the media covers for it.

[SandRat]

NO!!! Patrick, by ignoring Congress, Obama is “reshaping the power of the presidency.” Obama is behaving like he's a Pharaoh!

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“a future Republican president who could use it to smash big government”

BUT THEY NEVER DO. THEY ALWAYS LET THE DEMOCRATS DO WHATEVER, THEN WHEN THEY GET IN OFFICE THEY DO NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

“I happen to believe that the United States would be better off with greatly expanded legal immigration opportunities”

EXACTLY. HE’S AN IMMIGRATIONIST WHO IS HAPPY WITH THIS AMNESTY

[rurgan]

Obama just turned the U.S.. into a dictatorship. And it also gave Amnesty to illegals by decree. Obama must be impeached and jailed for this not applauded.

[lbryce]

Winning by Losing

[ctdonath2]

I could applaud an honest refusal to execute unconstitutional laws, when coupled with suitable filings for Supreme Court review.
Gratuitous refusal to execute established laws without legal reasoning and for plain political gain is grounds for immediate impeachment.

This is a line in the sand for many.

[Joe Boucher]

No SandRat,
Obammy is acting like the presidency is much larger than 1/3rd equal to the congress and judiciary.
Course with the leadership of the congress and senate you can actually see congressional power shrinking.
Boehner is a joke weenie.
And though Sandra Day says it is wrong to criticize the judiciary, I personally think many of the bastards should be hung from the closest tree.

[cripplecreek]

Conservatives should applaud anything which increases government inaction.

This isn't Obama telling the EPA to look the other way. Border control and immigration control are legitimate duties of government.

[KC_Lion]

Thou Shalt Not Question the god king Barak Hussein Ubama II

So let it be written, so let it be done.

[loveliberty2]

No, Mr. Krum, this is not an action Republicans should "applaud."

In America, where every elected representative swears to uphold the Constitution's protections of the rights and liberties of all, there is no "admirable" action if, by that action, the person who does it violates the Constitution's limits and bounds on his/her power, and his/her required oath of office.

Under the Constitution's separation of powers, the legislative branch (representatives of the people) makes laws and the executive branch executes those laws.

The President has a knack for setting up straw arguments which, when analyzed, turn out to be designed for political purposes. As we now know, the so-called "health care" bill was only a ruse and Trojan Horse for increasing government power and control of the economy and individuals in that economy. This action is no different. By its very nature, it masks the real Constitutional principle being violated in this "legislation" disguised as Executive Order.

Now is the time for all who love liberty to dedicate themselves to a new understanding of the Constitution's limits on the power of elected representatives, including the President of the United States. The Founders warned that usurpers might sacrifice the Creator-endowed rights and liberties of "the People," in order to assert coercive power over them. That is why they wrote a Constitution which only could be amended as prescribed in the document itself.

Justice Story declared in his "Commentaries on the Constitution . . ." that "the People" are the only Keepers of the Constitution, and if they do not retain that right, but allow a President to flout its provisions and act in violation of its limitations, then freedom will be lost.

This President seems irritated that the Constitution does not allow him to take arbitrary actions to impose policies he believes in. Republicans need to be grounded enough in Constitutional principles to defend the Constitution they swore to uphold, and bold enough to challenge assaults upon those principles.

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton

In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:

"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

[Monorprise]

I tend to agree with the author, refusing to enforce a act is a kind of passive veto.

The president has 2 effective ways to do this:

1: Divert resources else where so that there are none to affectingly enforce the act.

2: Issue regular blanket Pardons to all violators, making prosecution moot.

This power could be extremely valuable to conservatives in terms of shutting down Federal agency’s.

Were I president I’d kill the EPA & education department with this power.
Then after several years in which I would argue we were better off, id uses that fact to get congress to stop allocating money permently.

We conservative have far more to gain from this power than liberals could ever even imagin. And now that our politicians have no excuses, we can push them into using it.

[Monorprise]

Duty’s that take a distant back seat to all the usurpation by the same Government.

Besides we can come back and get rid of them later. Its not like the president can give them citizenship, just delay their removal for a time.

Ill take that in trade for our ability to kill countless Federal usurpation of our rights any day.

In the mean time our States can harass the illegal aliens by enforcing the no working rights ect.. provisions.

[Sea Parrot]

Hmmn, now why did’t I think of that?

Obama Waves His Presidential Mariachi and Frees the Illegal Dreamers

Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:18:54 AM · 10 of 10
Sea Parrot to NOBO2012

I know nothing will be done to Obama and he will skate free.

But, Obama has now set the precedent, and what goes around comes around.

Will be interesting to see how the LSM and lefties react when a republican president uses Obama’s tactics to circumvent liberal laws &c?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Following this logic, Obama’s refusal to enforce the law sets the precedent for Romney to jail abortionists. Right?

[cripplecreek]

Sorry, I’m just not a big fan of dictatorships.

[rurgan]

Obama issued an executive order that has the same effect as Congress passing the Dream Act Amnesty. This is an unlawful, treasonous,impeachable offense and a it is a crime. This turns the U.S.A into a dictatorship. It must not stand.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Obama has only dealt out the amnesty part of the Dream Act. Not that ICE would be able to do that wonderful a job between now and November of kicking out these “yung’uns” even if it tried twice as hard. The scholarship part isn’t there yet.

Any sane Congress would be impeaching Obama over this.

[rurgan]

Obama issued an executive order that has the same effect as Congress passing the Dream Act Amnesty. Republicans blocked the Dream act in Congress. But Obama dictator passed it anyway against the will of Congress and of the people. See we debate and our representatives vote on laws , a single individual doesn't decide a law is a good idea and then issues an order which becomes law. The president cannot make laws.Not even Hitler was this bold as his legislature had to first pass an enabling act giving him power to pass laws. This is an unlawful, treasonous,impeachable offense and a it is a crime. This turns the U.S.A into a dictatorship. It must not stand.

[EternalVigilance]

If a president were checking a lawless law passed by a lawless Congress; in other words, if he was standing against a Congress or Court that had clearly breached their constitutional limits, I would support such action.

That is obviously not the case here. The Constitution is crystal clear that Congress has the exclusive grant of power to establish immigration and naturalization standards.

Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

If Congress wasn't made up almost exclusively of moral and constitutional jellyfish the impeachment proceedings would be commencing this week.