Unconstitutional: “You keep using that word. I don’t think
it means what you think it means.” Apparently the president thinks it means, "Something I'm not willing or politically ready to do at this time, but is subject to change on my whim."
There are collections of video of Obama saying, at least a
couple dozen times, that acting on his own to change immigration law is
unconstitutional (example below). Then, of course, he did that just last Thursday, claiming
this was clearly within his power. Was he lying or misinformed before? Or is he
lying and misinformed now. Since the Constitution hasn’t changed in the
interim, it isn’t possible for him to be right on both sides.
There is also a chart going around comparing how many executive
orders each president has enacted per year. FDR was by far the most extreme,
enacting around 290 per year—for more years than any other president, to boot.
George W. Bush has fewer (about 36 per year) than Reagan (about 47 per year).
Obama is only slightly lower than George W. Bush, at 33-ish.
But this is the wrong question. Of course it is legal for a
president to give executive orders. The purpose of an executive order is to
direct the people working under him as to how to execute the laws duly enacted
by Congress. Executive orders are meant to be procedural. And they must be
simply a way to see to the carrying out of the laws; they cannot change the
laws or create new laws.
Much has been made about the executive order by Reagan to allow
for amnesty back in 1981—which was a directive on how to go about executing the
decision made by the democrat-led Congress. There isn’t an issue with the
legality of that executive order—although plenty of people can see that the
failure to close the border as promised simply invited more of the illegal immigrant
problem, rather than resolving it.
The question for last Thursday’s edict isn’t whether the
president has the right to give an executive order; he does. The question isn’t
whether he can act on immigration policy; he can, as Reagan did. But only as
Reagan did—following the law as defined by Congress, following the Constitution.
If you have a president, say Reagan, who uses executive
orders liberally but perhaps not even a single time for any purpose but
directing the executive branch in how to keep the law, then you have no
executive order problem. Then, suppose you have another president, say Obama,
who less frequently gives executive orders but often as an edict to create law
rather than to follow laws set by Congress, then each of those offenses is
breaking the law. Party doesn’t matter. The policy itself—along with its
efficacy or intent—doesn’t matter. The color of the president matters not a
whit. What matters is the breach of the law.
The president cannot act extralegally. He cannot make law.
We do not live in a monarchy, dictatorship, potentate, banana republic, or any
other tyranny. We live in a constitutional republic. We have a written law granting
only limited enumerated powers to the federal government, so that our God-given
natural rights are not infringed.
Can a president act beyond those enumerated powers?
Presidents have. This president does. But not legally. Presidents have
typically gotten away with exertion of power beyond what is granted depending
on their popularity. That is not the case now. This president isn’t popular.
His policies are not popular. His edicts are notably unpopular. He acts in the
face of those negatives.
So the next question is, How do we react, to limit the damage of his
acting beyond his authority in direct conflict with the limits guaranteed in
our Constitution?
The constitutionally designed response is impeachment. But,
despite his lack of popularity or approval, he does have media control, so the fear
in the hearts of congressmen is significant. Impeachment is time consuming, and
takes a sizable measure of focused energy and political capital. It’s not going
to happen when this man has only two more years in office.
So, the additional steps are to stonewall the illegal acts.
Defund anything that relates to executing his orders. Targeted defunding—not just
refusing to agree to a continuing resolution to keep spending as the president
sees fit, as an alternative to shutting down the government. One advantage of
now having a GOP Senate is that we can actually pass a budget—something the
democrat-led Senate has failed to do every single year. It’s easier to target
spending in an actual budget, so that’s a good thing, if the Congress will have
the stomach to do their job.
Additionally, Senator Ted Cruz is suggesting that no
political appointments should be approved until the president rescinds his illegal
orders. He should not be empowered by sycophants who will act on his orders in
contrast to law. Interesting idea. I hope it works.
There are also lawsuits. Texas Attorney General (and
Governor-elect) has already filed a lawsuit based on the significant damage to
the state caused by the president’s insistence on a porous border. It may be
that courts can suspend the immediate enactment of any illegal order. I’m also
in favor of states taking on the role of border enforcement when the federal
government fails—and then find ways to charge costs to the federal government
for whatever it costs each border state. I don’t think such a system has been
found yet. Texas is taking money out of its own budget to defend the
international border.
While mostly we’re talking today about the illegality of
using an executive order to make law, we can talk briefly actual immigration
policy. The answer is relatively simple, if not easy. It could already have
been done by an administration serious about a solution: close the border
(funding was supplied almost a decade ago, but not used for that purpose); make
it impossible for illegals to work here or to get social benefits here—thus ending
any incentive to come here illegally. Any costs for medical care, incarceration
or deportation of illegals should be billed to the home nation that the
illegals will be deported to—costs could be deducted from foreign aid, or
specific tariffs on imports from those nations until debt is paid. That’s a
side issue, but the intent is to stop those nations from encouraging their
citizens to come here and send dollars home.
There’s no need to wait to improve the bureaucracy; make it
a smooth and efficient process to come here legally. There is nothing stopping
the executive branch from doing its job better immediately. Resolving
bureaucratic red tape would change the dynamics of the argument from the start.
There is no need for “comprehensive immigration reform” in order to improve the
process.
What the president and others mean by “comprehensive
immigration reform” has been, and continues to be, naturalize illegals with the
intent of creating more dependent citizens who will vote democrat. While there
is reason to feel sympathy for those caught up in the
useless-bureaucracy-combined-with-porous-border up until now, the solution for
individual cases cannot be handled until the border is secure and the
bureaucracy is fully functioning.
One indicator that the president isn’t persuading the public
to his way of thinking is this Saturday Night Live skit, going viral, a parody
of the Schoolhouse Rock “I’m Just a Bill.” Enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment