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.

Obama defends executive powers

Obama has been accused of executive overreach.  Some say that his use of executive powers is violating the separation of powers, which are meant to prevent one branch of government from getting too powerful.  Yet Obama defended his executive usage to move forward his agenda.

At a press conference at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit on Wednesday, October 6, 2014, he defended his use of executive power as a means to bypass gridlock in Congress.  He said:

"The American people don't want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done,"

This is a perfect example of what I wrote about in a previous column, where I discussed that liberals, or progressives, like Obama believe that it's okay to ignore the law if the ends justify the means.  It's okay to ignore the Constitution so long as the progressive/liberal agenda is moved forward.

Those of us who love and cherish the Constitution and the rule of law, which would include all presidents prior to Obama, would put the Constitution and the rule of law before themselves and their political agenda.

Once again, this proves the Limbaugh Doctrine, whereby the President believes he is not responsible for anything bad that ever comes out of his term as President. He is not responsible for the down-trending polling numbers: it's the republicans fault.

Here's what I have to say on the matter:  "It's better to do nothing than to do something stupid.  It's better to do nothing and let the people solve problems, than to risk signing something into law that has never been tested before."

In other words, gridlock is better than passing stupid laws.  There's a reason for gridlock, and that is to prevent laws from being passed that will trample on the natural rights of those in the minority.