How to stop Obama

By 15 Comments 1,016 views

ObamaStop

January 20,2009

“I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear 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.”

“…faithfully execute…” >chortle<

Barack Obama took an oath to faithfully execute the office of President, and that includes respect of the law. Despite the fact that he is the biggest liar ever to stain the White House, hold that thought.

It is said that to provide what he calls “relief” to illegal immigrants Obama would wield something called “prosecutorial discretion.”

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.

Liberals are quick to defend it:

Here are some things to remember. President Obama is a Constitutional lawyer. He won on the Affordable Care Act. If he employs prosecutorial discretion in an executive order to grant amnesty to certain affected immigrants, he will probably win that fight too. The fundamental reason that the President will likely win is because Congress invented the flawed law that requires the executive branch to deal with the consequences of Congressional failure. That is the American system of government, by intelligent design, right?

Actually, no, but that’s for another time.

Some argue that the President has wide latitude in prosecutorial discretion:

“As a legal matter, [Obama’s] discretion is really broad. As a political matter, I think it’s much more constrained,” University of California, Los Angeles law professor Hiroshi Motomura told Bloomberg Businessweek earlier this year.

Charles Krauthammer disputes this:

“This idea of prosecutorial discretion is really a travesty. It is intended for extreme cases. for a case where you want to show mercy for individual or two where it’s unusual incident unusual circumstances and you say, okay, we’re going to give this person a pass. it was never intended to abolish a whole class of people subject to a law and to essentially abolish whole sections of a law.”

If a President claims prosecutorial discretion broad and large enough the result is nullification the law. Granting amnesty to 6 million would constitute nullification of immigration law.

At The Daily Signal Morgan and Inserra offer four reasons Obaam should not grant amnesty:

1. It would be an abuse of executive power for Obama to grant millions of illegal immigrants amnesty.

2. It’s not fair to prospective immigrants, legal residents, and American citizens.

3. Amnesty would be extremely expensive.

And arguably, the best reason:

4. Amnesty doesn’t work. If Obama pursues an administrative amnesty of millions of people, potential future illegal immigrants might think (wrongly) that they could qualify under this grant of amnesty or (rightly) that another amnesty is likely in the future if they can avoid deportation in the meantime. The end result will be more illegal immigrants crossing our borders.

It didn’t work in 1986 and it won’t work now. All the 1986 law did was to quadruple the number of illegal aliens in this country.

Let’s argue against Obama offering amnesty with the words of a “Constitutional Professor”:

We are talking about the same constitutional law professor here, aren’t we? I believe it was the same one who said in 2010:

“I Believe Such An Indiscriminate Approach Would Be Both Unwise And Unfair. … This Could Lead To A Surge In More Illegal Immigration.”

In March of 2011:

“With Respect To The Notion That I Can Just Suspend Deportations Through Executive Order, That’s Just Not The Case….”

In September of that same year:

“I Just Have To Continue To Say This Notion That Somehow I Can Just Change The Laws Unilaterally Is Just Not True. We Are Doing Everything We Can Administratively.”

and also said:

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

Yesterday the NY Times adds:

WASHINGTON — President Obama is poised to ignore stark warnings that executive action on immigration would amount to “violating our laws” and would be “very difficult to defend legally.”

Those warnings came not from Republican lawmakers but from Mr. Obama himself.

For years, the president has repeatedly waved aside the demands of Latino activists and Democratic allies who begged him to take action on his own, and he insisted publicly that a decision to shield millions of immigrants from deportation without an act of Congress would amount to nothing less than the dictates of a king, not a president.

Senator-elect Tom Cotton (R-AR) suggests a targeted approach:

Arkansas Sen.-elect Tom Cotton hinted on Sunday at exactly what he and fellow Republicans might do in response to President Obama’s vow to use executive action on immigration reform: selectively block the president’s spending like the GOP did on the Guantanamo Bay prison issue.

Cotton, a House member recently elected to the Senate, told “Fox News Sunday” that the GOP-controlled lower chamber could pass a spending bill that limits the president’s ability to spend on Social Security cards for illegal immigrants, who may be granted some type of U.S. residency status through executive action.

Cotton compared the strategy to House Republicans passing a Defense spending bill in June that included a provision that barred funding for transferring detainees in the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, established after the 9/11 terror attacks.

There is another thing that could be done. Make it clear to Senate and House democrats that the next Republican President can take from the threatened precedent and act in a similar fashion. The next Republican President can write an EO, via prosecutorial discretion, that would choose not to enforce the penalty for not having insurance, not to enforce the tax code for two years and not to enforce any EPA regulations at all.

A unilateral action on the part of Obama would signal that he has no intention of engaging in cooperation with Congress during his last two years and in return he should get none. Obama would be sculpting his own legacy.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

15 Responses to “How to stop Obama”

  1. 1

    Bill

    I still think he is bluffing. As we have seen, Obama seems to like (in these, his desperate times) to play the races against each other to garner support of the minority. He has done this repeatedly with the black population with his “income inequality”, support for OWS, wading into the Travon Martin issue and, now, supporting the Ferguson rioters. Why not employ the same strategy to make relations between whites and Hispanics more confrontational?

    I have predicted that Obama will back off his threats and then blame the obstinate Republicans for allowing him to get the Hispanic population’s hopes all up to a fever pitch, then yank the free ride rug right out from under them. Then, he can and will use the same tactic in 2016, as will other dishonest Democrats (was that redundant?).

  2. 2

    Greg

    Obama isn’t the problem. The problem is a dysfunctional Congress. Obama has been doing his job, which has increasingly involved trying to run the federal government in spite of a dysfunctional Congress.

    Obama isn’t bluffing. He’s going to force Congress to address a backlog of issues that they seem to prefer to avoid.

  3. 4

    Bill

    @Greg: The problem is liberals. Obama is a liberal. There are liberals in Congress. They all want to lure as many illegal immigrants as is possible here, give them entitlements and the right to vote so they can maintain power. Liberals have to have a huge dependent class because intelligent, self-reliant people will not support them.

    How is Obama going to face a “backlog of issues” when he and Harry Reid created the backlog? Obama IS the problem. Liberalism IS the problem.

  4. 8

    FMB42

    Our Government has 3 separate branches of government so that 1 person, or persons, doesn’t gain too much control (this is something that you pro-0Muslim trolls should have learned in grade school). A mature, ethical, and intelligent president, who was educated here, would understand that if Congress won’t “work” with him/her, than he/she needs to “work” with Congress. Unfortunately, oMuslim is neither mature, ethical, nor intelligent (and his U.S. education is very questionable due to his sealing of his college records).

    The bottom line is that 0Muslim is circumventing this “3 branch separation of power based government” because he sees himself as a dictator rather than as this Country’s President.

  5. 10

    mathman

    Liberals seek a permanent revolutionary party.
    Having aborted 40,000,000 voters, they have to replace them somehow.
    Best way: import them.
    Such an act would violate the Constitution. But that is the old Constitution, the one written on paper, the one enacted as our Nation’s base plate in 1787. The new Constitution floats out in nowhere, and means whatever we want it to mean. If the NC says no, we interpret it to mean yes. If the NC says can’t, we understand it to mean can.
    Where do you think “privacy” came from? Privacy isn’t in the text.
    So forget about those old written words. “Forgotten words written on some line.”
    We have a living constitution, which is whatever we want it to be.
    Like, dude, get with the program.
    His Supreme Holiness OBola reigns, and can do whatever he wants. He Won.

  6. 11

    Greg

    @FMB42:

    Our Government has 3 separate branches of government so that 1 person, or persons, doesn’t gain too much control (this is something that you pro-0Muslim trolls should have learned in grade school). A mature, ethical, and intelligent president, who was educated here, would understand that if Congress won’t “work” with him/her, than he/she needs to “work” with Congress.

    Congress has ceased to work with the President. Congress has ceased to work even with itself. They’ve accomplished little of positive value over the past four years and virtually nothing during the last two. They’ve actually done more harm than good. Their crowning achievement thus far has been to bring the rest of government to a standstill at a cost to taxpayers of some $24 billion.

    The Executive Branch does not have the luxury of being able to do nothing. It has to deal with pressing domestic and international issues daily. If republicans don’t want the Executive Branch taking up the slack created by their own Congressional negligence, maybe they should resume playing their own part in actual governance. Their function is to legislate. They’re suppose to create laws on behalf of the people to address problems and to promote the general welfare. They have ceased doing this. They seem to believe their primary job is to thwart all efforts by the nation’s duly elected President—a person that a strong majority of American have endorsed twice in elections that actually turned out record high numbers of voters—while scheming to take control of all branches of government themselves. Then, apparently, they will finally be in a position to govern.

  7. 12

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Congress has ceased to work with the President. Congress has ceased to work even with itself.

    There is a clear reason for this; Obama and Reid. Even when Obama had both houses of Congress in his pocket, he could not get everyone firing on all cylinders and had to bribe, illegally offer jobs and use every underhanded trick in the book to get Obamacare passed. This is because his legislative ideas are too liberals for most and most find repulsive.

    This cost him the House in 2010. Now, an entire chamber will not bend over to Obama’s far left agenda. The House wants to concentrate of economic recovery, not making the recession worse. So, Reid and Obama begin stalling everything that would help the American people (and thus make Republican legislation look better than Democrat legislation) that was sent to the Senate from the House. Of course it doesn’t work; the liberals make sure it doesn’t work.

    If the Executive branch wants to accomplish something, it will have to compromise with the will of the people. The people obviously do not want Obama’s far left agenda, so he needs to stop pushing it. His “fundamental transformation” is neither wanted or needed. The reason more Republicans than Democrats have been put in power is to carry out a more centrist or center-right agenda, not a socialist agenda.

    Liberals are the problem.

  8. 13

    Greg

    The excuse that a Senate controlled by democrats has blocked any useful action by republicans will evaporate next January. Either Congress will resume performing it’s legislative function, or it will be an historical deer-in-the-headlights moment for the GOP. We will see what happens.

    Republicans are making dangerous assumption if they believe their recent behavior represents the will of a majority of the American people.

  9. 14

    Bill

    @Greg: That may be, Greg, but the fact is that no one but Obama and his liberals have made cooperation and progress impossible. What will be is yet to be seen, but Reid has been the obstruction and he has done it at the behest of Obama.

    If Obama goes forth with his illegal abuse of his Constitutional authority, cooperation in the future will have been made much more difficult. The beat goes on.

  10. 15

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    Republicans are making dangerous assumption if they believe their recent behavior represents the will of a majority of the American people.

    Just curious Greg, have you ever heard: This is a Republic, a Republic is the form of government that a country has to PREVENT the tyranny of the majority. (A democracy is defined as a tyrannical form of government controlled by the majority.)
    Our form of government was adopted SPECIFICALLY to make it hard to modify laws, or to add new laws.

    The Congress passes laws. The constitution’s ‘intent’ is to make it difficult to get a law passed. If a law can’t get by both houses of congress and be signed by the president, it’s not going to become law. That’s the intent. If congress ‘won’t work’ with the president, or one branch of the legislature won’t work with the other, nothing gets done. If enough people in the country want it bad enough that they get their legislators to vote for it, lthen it will become law. If not, so be it.
    This old crap about the House won’t work with the Senate, or vice versa is just what the constitution wants for crappy laws that the public doesn’t want.
    The constitution was written so that IF enough people want it but the president doesn’t, they can still get it by a 67% override of a veto. On the other hand, the constitution IS NOT written so that the president can override the congress. If the congress doesn’t pass a law, the president can’t just issue a decree. That’s a dictatorship and is not our form of government, tho it sounds as if you’d be ok with that as long as it’s obozo that is the dictator. I bet you’d be singing a different song if GW Bush were the president.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *