“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”
That is a quote from President Barack Obama in March of 2011. It seems he has a pretty good grasp of the limits the Constitution placed on the power of the Executive branch. Congress passes the laws, and the Executive branch enforces them. And it is the President's job to ensure his branch is being effective in its design. The Founders desired it this way:
"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
However just last week the President announced that all illegal immigrants who were brought into this country before they were 16 years old will no longer be deported, at least not immediately, which ignores the current laws passed by Congress.
So what happened between March of 2011 and June of 2012 that caused the President to change his mind? Did the President discover some as of yet mysterious portion of the Constitution that would now allow the Executive branch to ignore laws passed in the Congress? Or is there something else going on? Joseph Curl of the Washington Times asked the same question.
"So why now? Politics. The Hispanic population in Florida, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado may well decide the November election, and with working-class whites, religious blacks, disenchanted young people and Jews fleeing in droves, Mr. Obama is looking to shore up his support, even if that means violating his oath to protect the Constitution." (read the full article here)
Since when do Presidents have the authority to unilaterally decide which laws to enforce and which laws they get to ignore? The fact that President Obama's new views might exist primarily for political purposes comes off as especially heinous. Sadly this isn't the first time President Obama has decided to cease following the law of the land. He's done this before, when he instructed his Justice Dept to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act; he did it again when he instructed that they no longer go after growers of 'medical' marijuana, and even again when he stopped ensuring that states adhere to No Child Left Behind. It's okay if a President disagrees with legislation (even expected), but to act as though you have expansive power not granted to your position by the Constitution is NOT okay. It appears especially egregious coming from a Constitutional Law professor!
I'm not sure whether I am now just awakening to the state of the American Presidency, or if President Obama really is acting out of character of the Presidents who preceded him. Did Presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush act this way as well? I'm not sure, but whether I've been blind until now or this is new behavior from the Executive Branch, it has to stop. When will we Americans wake up to these violations? When all freedom is lost? When we get a President who decides he will stop prosecuting those who violate our freedom of speech or our Freedom of Religion (Catholics are already being violated in this way by Obamacare. Perhaps it isn't too distant future until the rest of us are as well).
I find it more than annoying when people attempt to impeach every person in office just because they disagree with their policy, but at what point does it become so offensive that we take that exact action? Apparently this abuse of power was considered particularly offensive to the Founders, because they included the following in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:
“The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
How about the violation of the Oath he swore in taking office? Is that an impeachable offense? Are Presidents allowed to violate the Constitution and get a slap on the hand? What kind of President violates their Oath for only political gain? What does that say about his character? This goes beyond Red vs. Blue, Republican vs. Democrat. This is Right vs. Wrong. This is Constitutional vs. un-Constitutional.
Luckily for us an election is close by. Impeachment isn't something we must pursue as long as we vote him out in November. Mitt Romney has his flaws, but thus far he has not violated his Presidential Oath nor has he violated the Constitution. Thus, flaws and all, it is time to vote for Romney.
Recently I have tried to boil down my kettle full of reasons for everyone to not cast a vote for the current resident of the White House in three months. I had a truckload of reasons but realized that some were probably biased, too. So in a very self examining spotlight, I have come up with three reasons that we need someone new on Pennsylvania Ave. #1 Confidence. Every President has good times and bad times. Every President has things blamed on them that they really have no control over and should really be blamed on Congress. However, as with every President, the people that are presided over, look to that position as the "leader". Every Presidency has a Congress that is same party and then after election season, not same party or vice versa (okay it does not always follow this but cut me some latitude here to prove a point). So this brings me to the confidence point. Generally, businesses have, on the sidelines, about one billion dollars to invest, generally under any president. Not so with current dude. Close to 3 billion. What does that say? No confidence in this guy. #2 Unemployment. Normal numbers under most presidents run 3-4% for most of their terms, with peaks and valleys, obviously. Not so with this dude. He is recording 8-10% for the entire term. #3 Ability to get Congress to work together. Lack of an abiltiy, or whatever it is, to get them to even try to work together. I am not a huge fan of Romney, but almost anyone, and I do mean that, either party, would be better. We have to give someone else a chance to get that money in the game, get the unemployment rate down, and quit allowing 35% to sit at home and "be on the take" to help everyone out. The only other person that would cause no change is Joe "Bugs" Biden. I rest my case. Thanks for listening. Your Uncle Scott
ReplyDelete@Anonymous *wink*- Thanks for posting. I like all 3 of your points. 1 and 3 can be linked to a failure of leadership. It's unfortunate that the other party doesn't have anyone who gets people excited. If Romney had 1/2 of the charisma and communication skills of someone like Reagan, this election would be a runaway.
ReplyDelete