Tell him any amnesty or other EO shenanigans and not a single
nomination will move through the senate and things like the EEOC, EPA and other alphabet agencies will find themselves defunded. Send bill after bill up to him that will force him to veto, and make them painful for any Rat who wants to keep his seat tough to NOT vote for. Border security, Keystone, removing painful provisions to O care, defund O care etc etc etc.
Good idea - I would add that if amnesty happens with an EO, that ICe be dismantled and defunded along with any other agency associated with dealing with illegal aliens. After all, why would they be needed once he grants ammnesty for all?
As much as I would like to see major funding reductions (if not outright abolishment of certain agencies), the fact remains that it would take a “veto-proof” Senate majority to make such moves stick, would it not?
Short of a Convention of States type effort (which could force a re-thinking of the entire role of the federal government vis-a-vis the reinforcement of the original intent and application of the 10th amendment), perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be to pass a bill that would basically shift existing funding to the States in the form of block grants. This would allow for a deliberative process in each state as to what program(s) would continue and what programs would basically sunset and go away.
When Obama vetoes this kind of Bill, he would not be able to do so while asserting that Congress is trying to “do away” with Education (DOE), the environment (EPA), the less fortunate among us (HHS), etc. The Congress can then say, “we aren’t making that judgement, we’re just wanting these decisions to be made at the State level”.
Then,even if Congress doesn’t override Obama’s veto, the case can be made to the electorate that if you like the idea of having these decisions (and the funding that goes with it) made at the state level, give us the rest of the Senators we need to override such vetoes and/or a conservative President in 2016.