So, as expected, the Lightbringer has announced executive action to allow up to five million illegal aliens to obtain legal temporary residence in the USA. I believe his actions are unconstitutional (based as much on his own reading of the law as anything else, as we'll see in a moment), but fortunately they're not as damaging as they might have been. Dr. Jerry Pournelle has a succinct analysis of them over at Chaos Manor - it's worth reading.
The biggest problem, to me, is that President Obama has deliberately, callously and cold-bloodedly chosen to ride roughshod over the constitution and laws of the United States. His Justice Department has produced a 'justification' for his actions (the link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format), but his own words belie it. No less than 25 times in the past few years, he's made this clear.
He even (in so many words) admitted it during his speech last night:
And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill. I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary.
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama's rhetoric, Congress has already passed a bill - more than one of them. They currently form the law of the land. Mr. Obama really means that he wants another bill, one that conforms to his actions. I doubt very much whether he'll get it.
I think Mr. Obama's words last night demonstrated very clearly his contempt for the constitution and laws of this country, the legislative and judicial branches of its government, and the voters who - two weeks ago - handed an almighty shellacking to his policies and his party, a gigantic vote of no confidence in anyone's language. Clearly, he doesn't give a damn about any of them, and he's set course for a gigantic confrontation with all of them. As fellow blogger Murphy's Law has pointed out, what he's really saying is:
... it's not like I care what Congress wants or does. I mean, they just represent and speak for peons, and I, Barack Obama, am the leader and sole decider of what will or will not happen in this country.
There's more at the link. Recommended reading.
It's my personal belief that President Obama now represents a clear and present danger to the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution in these United States. The same applies to all who support his misguided and unconstitutional policy changes announced last night. He, and they, must be stopped. If the new Republican majority in Congress and the Senate fails to do so, they'll have branded themselves not only utterly ineffectual, but complicit in the danger he and his policies pose. Unfortunately, I expect nothing better from them . . . as I've said many times in these pages, I trust neither Republicans nor Democrats to put the interests of this country ahead of their partisan political objectives.
I won't be surprised to see some individuals and groups, who (justifiably) feel abandoned by their government, turn to more direct actions to deter the presence of illegal aliens. Under the circumstances, I can hardly blame them.
Peter
8 comments:
Obama's executive actions are unconstitutional? Sure they are, and he's been pretty blatant about it throughout his presidency.
The problem isn't uniquely his, however. The Shrub was happy to attack sovereign countries with little cause, no declaration of war and barely a fig leaf of justification. Before that, and before that, and before that...
Each and every president has help strengthen the precedent. Each time, the party in power figures "heck, it's for our cause, so it's ok. And then they are shocked, just shocked when the opposing party does the same thing when it's their turn.
The new Republican majority? Nah, they won't do anything at all. Because doing so would hamstring the Republican president they expect to have in two years. As you say, there is no reason to expect anything better from them...
Trust me this isn't about 5 million immigrants I suspect the number will soar beyond anything we thought it would.
Since I am in AZ we should have a front row seat to the influx.
But you see you AND the good Dr. P are both dead wrong for one simple reason. The patriot act NDAA and COG allow the president to rule as a dictator on his sole authority and determination of a "national crisis" (yes it's really worded like that). EVERYTHING Obama is doing is legal. "Constitutional government" ended almost 14 years ago. A Republican congress killed it. So "Get out the vote 2016" ;Like that will change anything. Just like it hasn't in my lifetime.
Truly sad, and I agree with your belief...
As much as I don't want to say it, what you all are saying is; The American Patriot has one box left, the others having failed. Are you saying, Peter, that its about that time, that SOMEONE is gonna pull out the cartridge box?
There are three paths now, and they're all fraught with some degree of hazard for the republic.
Congress can act, in several ways, to curb Obama's unconstitutional actions: impeachment, obviously, and/or by cutting funding to support whatever Obama attempts to accomplish. Impeachment is probably a non-starter because, first, Republicans don't have the courage or integrity to pursue it to its end. Rep Trey Gowdy, a caged lion on the IRS debacle, has already raised the Biden problem as a show stopper (not that whomever is VP should be a show stopper). As for cutting funds, Obama can simply move funds around, a tactic of questionable legality, and one that will require Congress flirt with the dreaded government shutdown to accomplish, because it will require cutting all funding severely enough to prevent that. That Congress has, over the last 8 decades, abdicated its legislative responsibilities to the executive, does not bode well for this tack.
Then there's the states, who can establish their own procedures. AG Holder sued Arizona when Gov Jan Brewer attempted to mirror fed dot gov immigration policies at the state level. Should enough of the fifty develop the intestinal fortitude to tell the feds to butt out and go forward with protecting their own borders, citizens and finances, it's certain to start a cat fight with Obama and Co.
Which may not be a bad thing. We are, after all, The United States of America, not American With an All Powerful Federal Government and Fifty Insignificant Subdivisions. The feds, since the '30s, have bought off the states with fed tax monies. It would not be a bad thing to return to the constitutional pecking order; it will lead to, and require, putting blood on the floor, however, and it remains to be seen whether the states have the guts to do that. A few do, but there's a critical mass issue at play here.
Third, and not insignificant, is the citizens, and this ties to my first point above; if the Republicans prove as feckless as most of us fear they will be (that's their track record, after all) the citizenry will conclude that there's no help available in Washington, from any source, and the choices become put up with the injustices, depend on the states to resolve it, or tackle the problem ourselves by opening that fourth box everyone talks about.
Should that path be taken there's no telling which face will be up when the dice stop rolling. Certainly a different one than we have today, but random chance doesn't have a lot to recommend it when modifying government.
I suspect the best choice will be for the states, with acknowledgement to that fourth box, to undertake restoration of their rightful place in the constitutional hiearchy. With a majority of state legislatures and governor's offices in Republican hands - and assuming that's the good thing many hope it is, because Feckless Juniors in the hinterlands is just as bad as a single Feckless Senior in D.C. - there may be a path out of this.
One of the problems we are facing is that the politicians in DC, and by extension the state level ones, don't think they are in peril. When things finally boil over, the life expectancy of a politician is going to be zip.
There won't be much moderation involved, I suspect. Won't matter what letters follow their name, they are all toast at that point. Until they realize they have skin in the game, literally, they are not going to change the way they do business.
I'm stumped at this point. I can't figure out how to get their attention in a way that will get positive results. It would be good if it can be started at the state level as InBa has mentioned, as that would seem to have the best chance at getting things turned away from where we are headed. I don't hold out much hope for it happening, though. Unfortunately, the result of it not happening is almost guaranteed to get very messy.
"May you live in interesting times". I'm so not looking forward to the near future.
Personally I believe that the President acting against Congress is inherently a bad course of action. It's a bad situation to be in because one of two things are true:
A) It's necessary.
B) It's not necessary and it's happening.
But is it automatically bad that it's being done? I for one would much prefer to be in a situation where a leader has done something where all the bickering idiots have accomplished nothing. Here in the sunny UK it's actually possible (the monarch still has the authority to dissolve parliament) and honestly I'd have preferred this to have happened when the previous Government drove our little island into the ground.
So is it automatically bad that the president is bypassing congress? Well the power exists for a reason, surely. What sort of things has it been used for in the past?
Post a Comment