Friday, November 21, 2014

The truth about Obamnasty

So there's a huge debate going on regarding the legality of what Obama did last night. He basically used his executive pen to bypass Congress in order to give 5,000 or so illegal aliens amnesty. Obama is claiming that there is precedence for what he is doing, and he often sites Ronald Reagan as an example.

Pretty much every thing I just wrote is debatable.

1.  I'm referring to them as illegal aliens becasue that's basically what they are. Although the politically correct people in Washington and the media are referring to them as undocumented workers. They are, in effect, illegal, and they are, in effect, aliens.

2.  Ronald Reagan did not use his executive pen to bypass Congress, because Congress passed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill in 1986, and Reagan signed it into law.  In effect, it gave Ronald Reagan permission to use his executive pen to enforce that law. He, in effect, did not bypass Congress.

However, despite this truth, the White House announced that there is precedence, and then the media just ran with it verbatim.

3.  Obama does not have the authority to bypass Congress, as Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "The Congres shall have Power... to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof."

In other words, only Congress has the power to write laws. The president may sign them into law or veto them, but he may not write them. He may influence the agenda of Congress, but he in no way can enforce his will on Congress, nor the people, as such powers are reserved to kings and queens and dictators and emperors.

As a side note here, he does have executive privilege; he does have the ability to write executive orders.  Yet this is a privilege reserved for those emergency situations (such as impending wars or economic disasters) when Congress is not in session, not just because Congress doesn't support the president's agenda.

During his inauguration Obama, as all other presidents before him, had to recite the following oath: “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.”

So you can see, use of his executive pen to create amnesty, in effect, encourages people to say to hell with the law.  Conservatives see this as unconstitutional. Liberals may also see it as unconstitutional, but they are willing to overlook it because it's the Constitution, after all, that stands in the way of their overly unpopular agenda (polls show 75 percent of Americans oppose amnesty).

4.  Obama is not calling it amnesty. What he is calling it is prosecutorial discretion. This is something used by prosecutors all the time, as there are so many laws being broken that they can't possibly 
prosecute them all.  So, by default, they may prioritize, going after crooks and killers over minor marijuana offenses.

Still, when, for example, prosecutors say they are not going to actively prosecute those who drink and drive, it does not mean that it is now legal to drink and drive. It just means there will be no active prosecution for such crimes. Despite prosecutorial discretion, drinking and driving is still a crime.

So, while Obama does have the Constitutional ability to determine which crimes will be prosecuted, he does not have the ability to make a crime no longer a crime, at least not without going through Congress.

5.  Obama's act encourages anarchy.  By ignoring the law, Obama is, in essence, encouraging others to do the same.  It is for this reason that many are saying that Obama, by this act of his executive pen, is encouraging anarchy.