SicEmBaylor
11/22/2014, 01:26 AM
The difference between the Reagan amnesty and the Obama amnesty is very much apples to oranges. Reagan’s was done WITH the consent of Congress and, in fact, his executive order was intended to correct a deficit in the legislation which failed to cover children in the United States whose parents were waiting for approval to stay -- the order deferred deportation of children whose parents were actively applying for amnesty. This was a simple oversight of the legislation when it was originally written. What Reagan DID NOT do was use the power of executive order to blatantly create new law counter to existing statutory law.
Let’s review, for a moment, the Constitutional purpose of the President of the United States: The President of the United States was neither intended to have nor given the right to create law. The domestic role of the President of the United States was to execute law and policy as passed by Congress and signed into law by either the current President or his/her predecessor. The Congress -- not the President -- was created to be the branch responsible for creating, shaping, and guiding social policy. Why? Because the Congress was a split between the representatives of the people directly (House of Representatives) and the representatives of the states as a whole political entity (Senate); thus, the Congress (i.e. Federal government) crafts law consistent with both the desires of the people and the interests of the states as a whole. No one person was ever intended to create or craft law which is why the responsibility is given to the Congress and not the President. The President, for his or her part, is given the ability to veto legislation (ostensibly in those cases when the legislation is unconstitutional or conflicts with rapidly changing international/diplomatic circumstances); however, the President has no right to demand or expect Congress to bend to his or her will.
This President has grossly exceeded his Constitutional and legal authority by, for all intents and purposes, changing existing United States law entirely on his own without the consent of Congress. This is absolutely an impeachable offense regardless of whether impeachment is politically feasible. For the first time since Lincoln’s wholesale dispense of the Constitution, this President has created the precedent that the Chief Executive can, entirely on his own and without the consent of Congress, create new law. This is as scary a development as any I’ve seen in my, admittedly, relatively short lifetime. The use of executive orders in this way ought to be cause of concern for liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans alike regardless of whether or not you technically agree with the policy found therein.
It is absolutely true that Obama isn’t the first President to exceed his Constitutional authority. Virtually every President, with a very small handful of exceptions, has exceeded their authority and done so relatively routinely -- especially since the establishment of the so-called ‘imperial Presidency.’ This goes quite a bit above and beyond what most Presidents prior to this one would have dared attempt. Even Richard Nixon was never so bold as to attempt to use executive orders to disregard the will of Congress quite to the degree that this President has on such a massive scale. This President has now legalized more people than jobs have been created for his entire term. We now shift a massive financial and infrastructural burden to local communities, counties, and states to deal with the results of this action. Millions of convicted felons who are guilty of everything from rape to gun smuggling for the cartels are now, effectively, safe from deportation. What would land you in a Mexican prison for decades is now completely legal in the United States, and we’ve sent the message that breaking our borders and our laws is perfectly acceptable so long as it is done so en-masse.
No President has or should have this level of authority regardless of their political affiliation. It should scare and frighten every liberty loving American who respects and believes in the Constitution of the United States and our law. You may rush to defend this action simply because the man doing it has that (D) next to their name, but you should be utterly appalled.
This action has no legal or Constitutional justification. Unfortunately, the Roberts Court has proven itself unwilling to risk the appearance of partisan preference in order to overturn overtly unconstitutional acts/law so it’s unlikely we’ll find remedy with SCOTUS. The only upside is that the next President can overturn this mess with one stroke of the pen moments after taking the oath of office. We can only hope he or she will be more judicious of their use of the executive order while being a better steward of the Constitution.
Let’s review, for a moment, the Constitutional purpose of the President of the United States: The President of the United States was neither intended to have nor given the right to create law. The domestic role of the President of the United States was to execute law and policy as passed by Congress and signed into law by either the current President or his/her predecessor. The Congress -- not the President -- was created to be the branch responsible for creating, shaping, and guiding social policy. Why? Because the Congress was a split between the representatives of the people directly (House of Representatives) and the representatives of the states as a whole political entity (Senate); thus, the Congress (i.e. Federal government) crafts law consistent with both the desires of the people and the interests of the states as a whole. No one person was ever intended to create or craft law which is why the responsibility is given to the Congress and not the President. The President, for his or her part, is given the ability to veto legislation (ostensibly in those cases when the legislation is unconstitutional or conflicts with rapidly changing international/diplomatic circumstances); however, the President has no right to demand or expect Congress to bend to his or her will.
This President has grossly exceeded his Constitutional and legal authority by, for all intents and purposes, changing existing United States law entirely on his own without the consent of Congress. This is absolutely an impeachable offense regardless of whether impeachment is politically feasible. For the first time since Lincoln’s wholesale dispense of the Constitution, this President has created the precedent that the Chief Executive can, entirely on his own and without the consent of Congress, create new law. This is as scary a development as any I’ve seen in my, admittedly, relatively short lifetime. The use of executive orders in this way ought to be cause of concern for liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans alike regardless of whether or not you technically agree with the policy found therein.
It is absolutely true that Obama isn’t the first President to exceed his Constitutional authority. Virtually every President, with a very small handful of exceptions, has exceeded their authority and done so relatively routinely -- especially since the establishment of the so-called ‘imperial Presidency.’ This goes quite a bit above and beyond what most Presidents prior to this one would have dared attempt. Even Richard Nixon was never so bold as to attempt to use executive orders to disregard the will of Congress quite to the degree that this President has on such a massive scale. This President has now legalized more people than jobs have been created for his entire term. We now shift a massive financial and infrastructural burden to local communities, counties, and states to deal with the results of this action. Millions of convicted felons who are guilty of everything from rape to gun smuggling for the cartels are now, effectively, safe from deportation. What would land you in a Mexican prison for decades is now completely legal in the United States, and we’ve sent the message that breaking our borders and our laws is perfectly acceptable so long as it is done so en-masse.
No President has or should have this level of authority regardless of their political affiliation. It should scare and frighten every liberty loving American who respects and believes in the Constitution of the United States and our law. You may rush to defend this action simply because the man doing it has that (D) next to their name, but you should be utterly appalled.
This action has no legal or Constitutional justification. Unfortunately, the Roberts Court has proven itself unwilling to risk the appearance of partisan preference in order to overturn overtly unconstitutional acts/law so it’s unlikely we’ll find remedy with SCOTUS. The only upside is that the next President can overturn this mess with one stroke of the pen moments after taking the oath of office. We can only hope he or she will be more judicious of their use of the executive order while being a better steward of the Constitution.