Ok, maybe I'm wrong...
Posted on 08/04/2014 4:18:06 AM PDT by markomalley
That seems like an awfully strong word, but it is the term that distinguished law professor Glenn Reynolds, no hysteric, uses to describe the Obama administration’s oft-reported plan to issue executive amnesty to five or six million illegal immigrants in violation of federal law. Glenn’s characterization is a fair one. When a tyrant asserts the right to rule by decree in a state that has formerly been subject to the rule of law, he is commonly described as carrying out a coup d’etat.
That is just what the Obama administration has done, and reportedly will continue to do. When Obama changed the Affordable Care Act by decree–to name just one example, substituting “2014″ for “2013″ in a critical provision of the statute–he acted as a tyrant. In his refusal to enforce the immigration laws, contrary to the Constitution which requires him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” he has acted like a tinpot dictator, asserting the right to change or ignore the law by fiat. If he now directly nullifies Section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act by legalizing, and issuing work permits to, five or six million illegal immigrants, thereby repealing federal law by decree, how else can we describe his action but as a coup? The Obama administration openly takes the position that the rule of law no longer applies.
Can you imagine the furor that would have resulted if President Nixon, in the midst of the Watergate crisis, had asserted the right to repeal or amend federal statutes by decree? No, actually, you can’t. Forget impeachment; he would have been escorted out of the Oval Office by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. What, then, makes Barack Obama special? How can he claim the right to rule by decree without suffering the same condemnation? Well, the answer is obvious: he is a Democrat. But is that really enough? No president, Democrat or Republican, has ever dreamed of asserting such unconstitutional authority.
I am one of many who have ridiculed the Democrats’ seemingly weird obsession with impeachment. But perhaps there is method to the Democrats’ apparent madness. If they know that President Obama is about to do something that obviously warrants impeachment–asserting the right to rule by executive decree, and repealing the nation’s immigration laws by fiat–perhaps it is shrewd on their part to preemptively attack the idea of impeachment and commit Republicans to the fact that they have no thought of any such thing. Then, when Obama makes his move, it will be harder for Republicans to switch gears and start talking about removing him from office. That strikes me as the most logical explanation for the Democrats’ well-coordinated, but seemingly pointless, anti-impeachment campaign.
Today, the White House started backing off on plans to issue an executive amnesty. Maybe, as Glenn Reynolds says, this is a sign that someone in the White House is in touch with reality. Perhaps a coup has been averted, on this subject at least. But eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, so let’s not let down our guard.
my fears too.
Also a Kenyan Sunni Muslim .
Can you elaborate?
Yes but the soldiers do the fighting!!
A 'Rat who at least does not appear to be totally enthralled with Alinsky tactics as 0' and H! in fact worship.
[although, his white-teeth smiling is the Alinsky ridicule-them tactic]
“...he would have been escorted out of the Oval Office by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.”
Who is the Chairman now? Is this something that can really be done?
Her highness was in town recently. Local radio interviewed a young woman waiting on line and her response has haunted me..."HRC can clean up the mess from Obama".
No Matter how many die, No Matter how much it costs, the perpetrators must be on the winning side, and never subject to prosecution FOR anything, BY anyone, That is a Coup d'État
http://youtu.be/xuUtu2xRGgY?t=3m23s
So if a few Hondurans Die in the Texas Desert? Or an Ambassador is left to die because they were running guns to ISIS?
What Difference Does it Make?
He IS the coup.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong...
They all work for O’bastard, no they wouldn’t do it.
I don’t think Obama as a leftist adheres to any serious principles which would make him view a coup as a terrible thing.
As for amnesty it only makes sense for him to do it after the election. Even a Republican Senate will not be able to remove him.
He may have toyed with doing it sooner to energize his base but the dems running for office told him to back off. Still he is flooding the country with illegals so who knows.
ping for later
I’ve been saying this is a coup since 2008 - see tag lie.
And, agree with the sentiment 0bama is indeed just the front man, used to apply the poisons crafted by his handlers to accomplish their end mission of dragging this nation down to the status quo of their world view.
Statesmen like Reagan and Churchill come along once every hundred million or so souls. Tinpot figureheads like 0bama and Clinton are intellectually identical and therefore as easily replaced as a common janitor.
Yes, but, defending the Alamo bought Sam Houston enough time to organize and defeat Santa Ana at Golidad.
The ultimate victory...
most interesting article, saved for later evaluation
If we impeach now, then the conversation is about whack-job racist republicans. And we lose the Senate. Again.
The best course is to have the insurance premiums come out, have companies lay off employees and let a couple of measles cases pop up.
The ONLY way the Dems win in November is if we impeach.
Impeach in January.
What, then, makes Barack Obama special?...He is a mullato.
**********************
Sorta. Half white, about 30% Arab and 20% black.
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.