[virgil283]

"The only problem is that , the day before she said those words, a federal judge had announced that Napolitano is dead wrong – the executive branch of government does not get to nullify properly passed laws by refusing to enforce them. There is a possibility, then, that when Napolitano boldly stated in the Senate that she and the President could do whatever the heck they want, and laws be damned, she was deliberately ignoring a contrary judicial finding. If that’s the case, she’s also claiming that the separation of powers is completely invalid, because the executive office trumps everything.

On April 23, the day before Napolitano testified in before the Senate, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor held explicitly that the executive has no discretion when it comes to enforcing United States law: “The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings.”

The ICE case isn’t over yet because the court, having stated the law, still needs to determine where the facts fit in on that continuum. The one thing that’s plain, though, is that Napolitano declaration of power before the Senate is unconstitutional executive overreach."

[Gen.Blather]

The saving grace here is that all of the officials appointed by Obama appear incompetent. There’s not one Rommel or Eisenhower, Netanyahu or Churchill. For that we can thank God.

Now, having said that, Hitler, Chamberlain and Carter have done plenty of damage.

[Baseballguy]

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one’s sovereign or nation.

[USNBandit]

I think avoiding immigration laws through policy change is expressly forbidden by the 1986 immigration law.

[Travis McGee]

[Jeff Winston]

What the hell do you do with an administration that says they can order people not to enforce the laws of the United States?

[Grampa Dave]

[Revel]

What you will always notice in all of these cases it the absence of any congressional action to enforce the law. Because congress is in on it.

[jeffc]

How apoplectic would Dems and the “media” be if a Repub Prez announced he was going to ignore a favored liberal law (say Planned Parenthood funding)?

[RetiredArmy]

The current communist regime in Sodom on the Potomac has never met a law that they could not or would not break. If it is a law, their program is to break it or ignore it. Who is going to stop them? Congress won’t. Americans have no power to stop them. The Americans that would try are few. So, the law breakers continue to break laws and get away with it. Protected by the butt kissers in the MSM.

[clamper1797]

“What difference does it make ?”.... Her Thighness Hillary Clinton

[sten]

that sounds about right. i’d agree with the judge. not enforcing a law is akin to the law not existing.

which makes to look at article 2 section 1...

[Mister Da]

There was a time that the rule of law trumped partisanship in Congress. There was a time when Congress would hold the President accountable for the misdeeds of his administration.

Not anymore.

If we had an opposition party - the GOP is not it, they would refuse to fund such lawlessness, demand that heads roll, but we don't.

This country is on a slow but inevitable slide into tyranny in a very bipartisan way.

[Seven plus One]

It sure is. The interesting thing here is that this is a Cabinet level apparatchik declaring to the Senate that this Executive has the 'authority' to selectively enforce U.S. statute. It is on record.
Watch this regime (slowly) crash and burn if they choose to argue this. Stupid on parade.
Now, just shoo people away from the pig-in-a-poke amnesty bill. Rubio, I'm talking to you.