Irrespective of one's views on immigration, legal or otherwise, I think anyone who values and respects the Constitution of the United States can only be outraged at President Obama's latest decision to grant temporary work permits to a certain class of illegal immigrants, rather than deport them as the law requires. As Victor Davis Hanson points out:
Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.
There's more at the link.
Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution requires the President, among other obligations, to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'. His oath of office requires that he swear to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. On the basis of the law as it stands, I therefore see no difficulty in proving, unambiguously and objectively, that President Obama has violated his oath of office and his responsibilities under the Constitution. Why has no-one yet begun impeachment proceedings against him?
Peter
6 comments:
Obama and his army of anarchists have been planning the destruction of Capitalist, Democracy in America for decades.
They've studied deception very well and have been silently maneuvering their forces into all areas of the government.
Obama's installment as president was the final signal to those moles that it is now the time to act.
Read the following. It was written in 1992 and is an eerie albeit correct insight into the current struggle. (long, but worth it)
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/1992/1992%20dunlap.pdf
The man(?) is an Oathbreaker. Yet no one in the lame-stream media will call him on it; they are fellow travellers on the road to serfdom. 20 yrs. ago, I read a book by Mercedes Lackey titled Just that.... Oathbreaker. In the Medevial world she created, it was the worst thing you could be, short of a cold-blooded murderer/traiter. yet like Jane Fonda (and I protested the war myself) none dare call it TREASON. JohninMd(help)
The people in Congress have no Spine, they are more concerned about maintaining their life of power and privilege rather than obeying their oath.
It's a bit like this- Obama has not been impeached because it would be seen more as a petty political stunt that was doomed to fail. The Clinton impeachment was a political loser, for instance.
If the Republican party was to try impeachment, first, it would not get past the Democratic Senate. Second, it would help Obama's chances for re-election. So, the smart move is to wait for Obama to get voted out in November, then change things around.
Don't you remember that there was no Bible? The entire swearing-in ceremony was a farce. Yes, someone had him do this again in private, with a Bible, supposedly, it could have been a Qran for all we know, but no wonder he and Moochelle were grinning like a couple of Cheshire cats! From day one he's been something less than savory. What a shame for us, but maybe our lucky day. This guy is alike a tick, and we'll have to work harder to get him out of his ivory tower.
Toejam: There's nothing anarchistic about the President or anyone of his coterie.
He may choose to not follow the law, but that's nowhere near the same as being philosophically opposed to rulers.
Post a Comment