Two weeks ago, Barack Obama watched the Democrats lose the Senate and he said to America, “I got your message.”
In less than two weeks, we have his response: Congress must do what I want (reward 5 million illegal immigrants with amnesty), or I’ll do it on my own.
Obama claims executive authority to give amnesty to 5 million individuals, “because Congress has failed to act.” This dishonest attempt to justify amnesty doesn’t fly because Congress did act. They debated – and rejected – immigration reform. Moreover, public sentiment strongly opposes amnesty.
Even the New York Times, which often doubles as the Obama administration’s propaganda outlet, seems aghast by the president’s blatant power grab:
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.
In a Telemundo interview in September 2013, Mr. Obama said he was proud of having protected the “Dreamers” — people who came to the United States illegally as young children — from deportation. But he said at the time that he could not apply that same action to other groups of people.
“If we start broadening that, then essentially, I’ll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Mr. Obama told Jose Diaz-Balart in the interview. “So that’s not an option.”
Obama wanted amnesty (under the guise of immigration reform), and it didn’t pass – therefore he tells us the system is broken. And because the system is broken, he’s just going to have to override the legislative branch (our Congressional representation) “to get things done” and “do the right thing” and all of his usual baloney.
It would be more honest and respectable for him to say, “Congress did not do what I wanted them to do. I’m willing to set aside your Congressional representation guaranteed in the Constitution, because I don’t think you can stop me.”
You probably remember from high-school civics that we have 3 separate, equal branches of government: Judicial (the courts); Legislative (the citizens’ Congressional representation); Executive (the president and vice-president).
When the three branches don’t work together, disgruntled politicians call it gridlock; but this design maintains a balance of power. If the president can set aside our elected representatives when he chooses, there is no balance of power. We do not have a republic, or even a democracy. Best case, we have a monarchy; worst, a dictatorship. Either way, our government – which was constructed for a self-governing people – won’t work.
It’s time to re-ask ourselves some fundamental questions. One question seems timely with all the talk of another government shutdown brewing – are we willing to accept taxation without representation?