Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama prepares to throw down the gauntlet

Obama prepares to throw down the gauntlet

We’ve been waiting for this for quite some time, haven’t we?

For months Obama has been saying, “I’m gonna do it, I’m really gonna do it—unless of course you give me what I want.” He even told us the timing; it would be after the election.

In doing so, he will be keeping a promise to his radical base (Hispanic and otherwise), issuing a threat to the Republicans in Congress, and thumbing his nose at the American voters who expressed disapproval of him on November 4. You don’t get a trifecta like that every day from a president.

I just wrote that what Obama is about to do constitutes a threat to Republicans in Congress. But actually, it’s a threat to Congress itself. Democrats should be just as disturbed as Republicans by it, because it’s not the ends that are as important here as the very dangerous means. But if you’ve listened to a great many Democrats talk about it, you’d think ends are all they care about—and you might just be correct for most of them.

Obama has the strong support of leading Democrats, who seem only too happy to cede the power of Congress to the president to get something they think will benefit the Party. Of course, they don’t state that it’s a dangerous executive power overreach; they say this is just like what other presidents have done when they used their executive discretion to tweak immigration laws. Surely they must be aware of the differences. But being aware has nothing to do with it; ideologues of the left have no trouble telling themselves that 2 + 2 = 5, and that what Reagan and Bush did was just the same as what Obama is poised to do now, even though only political junkies have even heard of the former actions before because they were relatively non-controversial.

Frum summarizes the differences here, and they are substantial:

Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose. In 1986, Congress passed a full-blown amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, conferring residency rights on some 3 million people. Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as a “once and for all” solution to the illegal immigration problem: amnesty now, to be followed by strict enforcement in future. Precisely because of their ambition, the statute’s authors were confounded when their broad law generated some unanticipated hard cases. The hardest were those in which some members of a single family qualified for amnesty, while others did not. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies. Although Simpson-Mazzoli itself had been controversial, neither of these follow-ups was…

…[Obama’s about-to-be announced action] would not further a congressional purpose. It is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress…

Another summary is here:

Reagan and Bush…made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent.

…In short, while Reagan and Bush worked closely with Congress to implement the comprehensive legislation that Congress had passed (in the case of Reagan) or would pass shortly thereafter (in the case of Bush), Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unconstitutionally revising existing law and, without Congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress time and time again, thereby setting himself up as a kingmaker (or king) on immigration policy.

By doing so, the president is establishing a dangerous precedent that violates fundamental principles of separation of powers that serve as a bulwark to protect our liberties and that established a government of laws and not of men.

That’s not the only way that Obama’s action is unique, and uniquely awful. Can you think of another case in which a president himself has made the case that an action is unconstitutional, and made it repeatedly while in office, and then reversed himself and said it’s perfectly constitutional because he’s grown impatient and wants to do it? Obama himself has clearly said, over and over (22 times, to be exact), that he can’t do it. But we are supposed to forget that, like those Soviet photos that removed Communists who had incurred the wrath of the Party and become unpersons.

Let’s hear the opinion of a legal expert who happens to mostly agree with Obama’s ends, but deplores Obama’s means in the very strongest of terms. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, says, “It’s a very sad moment, but it’s going to become a particularly dangerous moment.” When asked specifically about resemblances to Reagan and Bush’s executive actions on immigration, he says simply and unequivocally, “this would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers within our system.”:

Reports of the death of the republic are perhaps premature. But it may be in serious or even critical condition. Much will depend on the reaction of Republicans, and on whether a significant number of other liberals join Turley (for example, even Ruth Marcus, of all people, is at least uneasy about the precedent being set by Obama) in expressing condemnation, and joining with Republicans to fight Obama.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Subotai Bahadur | November 20, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Rubicon
alea iacta est

I have always believed that Mr. Obama has made it his life’s work to deliberately bring this nation to its knees; he was weaned on Anti-Americanism and whatever brand of socialism you wish to ascribe to him. While most people who express displeasure with his policies and think he’s been a terrible president, I believe he is succeeding in his cloaked goals of pulling the pillars of our Republic down.

With the repudiation of his policies manifest in the election results, and having become a lame duck, he is entering the scorched earth phase of his administration. This will not be the last outrageous act he attempts, rather it is only the first. The next two years will be just awful as we try to limit the damage.

He should be removed from office, along with Biden, now to limit the damage, regardless of the consequences of the feral supporters that will act out at his impeachment. It must be done.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 20, 2014 at 5:17 pm

One of the things that John Podesta was known for when he was chief of staff for Clinton was pushing against the separation of powers doctrine to make the executive branch more powerful. It’s funny how Obama repeatedly said that unilaterally pushing for immigration was unlawful and unconstitutional – right up until Podesta formally joined the administration about a year ago. Podesta is also a well known believer in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and Obama is now pushing the EPA for harsher regulations.

Obama’s actions sure seem to me like they’ve got Podesta’s fingerprints on them. Why aren’t more people talking about Podesta’s influence? If I’m right that he’s the instigator, or at least strongly influencing Obama, he’s the most dangerous man in Washington. How do we get him removed?

    The Clinton years echo again..”stoke of the pen, rule of the land…. cool”.

    If true, it’s pretty pathetic that Obama, Harvard Law graduate and supposed constitutional law professor at Chicago, could be so easily persuaded that his own views about the constitutional limits of executive power are incorrect.

    It appears Obama’s peers on the law faculty at Chicago were exactly right about him: he is an intellectual lightweight who can’t defend his own positions.

      alaskabob in reply to Observer. | November 20, 2014 at 7:46 pm

      “Affirmative Action” degrees and positions. About the same value as Jihad John and his beheadings getting a culinary degree. As for being an expert in the Constitution… “adjunct” titles fall into two catagories… 1) real world experienced and qualified professionals sharing their knowledge and 2) suck up titles to fluff up CVs with no real world experience needed (affirmative action). The titles may be phoney but the damage being done is real.

      Radegunda in reply to Observer. | November 20, 2014 at 10:01 pm

      I’ve read that his colleagues on the Chicago Law faculty were all aware that his gig there was merely a steppingstone to political power. Undoubtedly he chose to study constitutional law (or his patrons advised it) because it would give him the most respectable-sounding resume and a disguise for his true intent in political office.

I know that impeachment is the forbidden word now but the only way to stop this now and in the future is to get it before the Senate in a trial. That way both sides can present their case and the American people can see the arguments pro and con. The way it is being done now is only right wing radio and TV are even bothering to report on it. The masses are not even aware of what is going on. This is about our nation’s future and not about the present crowd getting re-elected. If there was one single patriot in DC with an R beside their name he/she would stand up and be heard for impeachment.

Amnesty through consensus, not executive dictate. Congress can grant a comprehensive amnesty, including penalties; but, they must investigate and address the causes for periodic mass exodus from second and third-world nations; and they must address the local impact, including displacement, replacement, and rationing. They must address the consequences of degenerate policies like “planned parenthood”, that legalize and normalize elective abortion of around 2 million Americans annually.

I know the Democrats do not care, they are pro-choice or selective. I wonder how many Republicans hold the same religious (i.e. moral) view as their liberal counterparts. Americans need to know that there is both a moral and practical consequence that follows with legalizing and normalizing premeditated murder of human life — for causes other than self-defense — when it is uniquely vulnerable. The illegal alien invasion and multi-trillion welfare economy are both a cause and symptom of a degenerate moral state.

This is a flagrant abuse of power, which Obama himself (that esteemed “constitutional law expert,” according to the left) has acknowledged as such. It cannot be allowed to stand.

If the congress won’t stop Obama, then the states must. State taxpayers are already being burdened with billions of dollars in extra tax obligations to provide services for all the illegal aliens flooding across the border. In Houston alone, the thousands of central American illegal alien kids who came into that county in the last year are going to cost taxpayers there $28 million dollars, according to the Texas Education Association. That’s just one county.

In Arizona, where I live, we get waves of new illegal aliens coming across the border every time Obama mentions amnesty — and all the added crime and expense that comes along with the illegals. It would be unconscionable, and a dereliction of duty, for the state governors to fail to do everything in their power to stop Obama’s lawlessness. His indefensible abuses of power are harming citizens and taxpayers in every state, but particularly those of us in the border states. He cannot be allowed to get away with this.

“Give me what I want or I’ll do something illegal”.

Sounds kinda terroristic to me…..

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | November 20, 2014 at 6:23 pm

Obama has said many times, at least 22 if not more, times that he doesn’t have the right to make law through executive action. Yet it sounds like he’s going to do so tonight.

Also, while the MSM likes to state that Obama is a Constitutional scholar, my understanding is that he only lectured on a small part of that document. IMHO, Obama has no use for the Constitution except as a trivial piece of ancient history. Obama is acting as did Louis XIV, that he is the state; he wants therefore the state wants.

Obama is creating the imperfect storm, an uproar over his enacting laws through executive action, coupled with severe civil unrest over the impending Ferguson Grand Jury decision, and the porous southern border, I wouldn’t be surprised when Obama declares martial law, with limitations on those civil expressions not previously approved by his administration,

I tell you, the whole problem with impeachment, is that many blacks have their self-image tied in with this guy, and if he is impeached, let alone convicted, many blacks will be bitter. They will not be able to believe it was done on principle, and they will not care that he was killing their job prospects, which he most certainly is – black and white Americans.

that’s the whole crux of the problem. We are starting to peel some blacks off the democratic plantation. Perhaps we will continue to, even if impeachment is pursued. Perhaps not.

But his brazenness is alarming.

Ultimately, Obama and his actions are a symptom, not the disease. Any hard lefty would be doing the same or even worse. Obama is just a radical academic who lied his way into office – we could round up a thousand more just like him by tomorrow. The disease is the American press. Our republic doesn’t merely allow a free press, it requires a free press. Judged as a whole, our press is not free. It is captive to the progressive liberal ideology. It wasn’t conquered – it willfully surrendered. It is not a free press.

FOX news and the myriad conservative media outlets on radio, TV, and the internet are able to provide a check on malfeasance by those in government, but it takes too long to saturate the public because the other 90% of the media edifice is 100% in the tank for progressive liberalism, under Obama at the moment, but they’ll prop up any like-minded radical in the WH. The way they lie and prop up favored libs offsets much of what conservative media does to reveal the truth of things. Their lies counter our truths and the public can’t be sure whom to believe.

But the problem is not Obama, per se – it’s that the MSM will not honor the responsibilities of honesty, objectivity, and transparency that come with the constitutional rights to a free press. They exaggerate prog/lib wins and spike – ignore – prog/lib failures. Too much of the American public never receives any ‘news’, just propaganda designed to negate the one thing so sorely needed to protect our republic: a pissed off grassroots electorate that reminds the government and press who exactly is in charge.

Conservatives would do well to learn better ways of pressuring the MSM into competency.

As for Obama’s EO, who knows? The guy is completely lame ducked out and has nothing to lose politically. He is also juvemnile enough to spend his last teaspoon of political juice just to poke the GOP in the eye while he can before the new congress convenes in January.

I also wouldn’t be a bit surprised if his EO is a list of little shit nobody cares about, an attempt to pull the wool over the Hispanic collective eyes yet again: “I’ve been promising you this while new elections loomed to keep you on the plantation and I’ve successfully lulled you past the midterms. but I’m out now, a lame duck, so guess what? Here’s your promised action, an immigration EO full of big words and lofty ideals, but little actual change once you drill down into the bedrock of this bullshit. Suck it, suckers! And thanks for your support in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014!”

My feeling is this – Constitutional ‘scholar’ Barack Obama himself said repeatedly that the EO he’s thratening is unconstitutional, that he simply doesn’t have the authority, and yet, here he is about to do it anyway (by report). Well, if a president knows an action is illegal, goes against established law and the constitution, and he does it anyway, how is that NOT impeachable? It strikes me as an offense so egregious and so portentious of peril to our way of government, that you HAVE to impeach regardless of any putative political damage it may bring upon you.

How can elected Congressmen/women ask our young men and women to give their lives in defense of our nation, but refuse to risk their **political** well-being in defense of our nation?

IF HE OPENS THE BREECH, YOU MUST IMPEACH!

And we should be prepared to throw out the goddam Squeaker and McTurtle who are ready to sell out the Republic.

So who is worse, these RINO bastard cowards, or the fascists they refuse to oppose?

What is truly sad is that Democrat senators are standing up for the President’s unconstitutional over reaching. They should be defending the powers and prerogatives of the Senate and Congress to make the laws, not the president. The Republicans can blunt the president’s executive order through one of the trump cards of the latest election, control of so many state legislative bodies and governorships. Governors can issue executive orders of their own to deny driver licenses and benefits to those non-deported by Obama’s actions. State legislatures can vote not to provide any support to those so “legalized.” The blue states will accept and fund those legalized but that will just break their budgets sooner as some are already near bankruptcy.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend