What’s a Constitution Between Friends?

The federal DREAM Act failed to pass Congress; however, President Obama has never been one to let a pesky little thing like the U.S. Constitution to get in the way of achieving his policy objectives.

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Let’s take a look at Article II of the Constitution (the article dealing with the presidency, for those of you in Rio Linda). Hmmm, we’ve got length of term, eligibility requirements, the electoral college, Commander-in-Chief, state of the Union, adjourning Congress . . .  don’t see anything here about just ignoring the will of Congress when they don’t implement policies you approve of.

Oh. Wait. There it is. It’s right between the penumbras and emanations guaranteeing the right to privacy and abortion. My bad. Clearly my Ph. D training was incomplete.

Now you might be upset with this decision, but do not question President Obama’s fealty to the Constitution. This is a man who has been a zealous guardian of the Executive Branch’s duties and responsibilities. And if you don’t believe me, just take a closer look at the tremendous work the Justice Department has done in fighting for the Defense of Marriage Act. No, that president would never let partisan politics prevent him from faithfully upholding the laws of our land.

In all seriousness, this is another power grab that would be impeachable in a saner world. Make no mistake, this is not about the policy itself. That is a topic for another discussion, and is absolutely not the point of this post. The merit of the policy is irrelevant to the concerns over constitutional authority and power. Last I checked this was still a constitutional republic, not an autocracy, and the president of the United States cannot simply make policy absent a grant of legislative authority.

What’s troubling to me is seeing a handful of Catholics applauding this decision, including Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati. I understand why these individuals support the overall policy, but again, the policy itself is beside the point. You should not applaud a policy when the manner in which it is implemented so flagrantly violates the Constitution.

So let me say this bluntly: if you approve of the president’s actions in this particular case, then you have absolutely no standing whatsoever to to complain about the constitutionality of the HHS mandate. If you support this action but think the HHS mandate is a tyrannical show of force, then you are a complete hypocrite. You’re essentially signalling that you are okay with usurpation of constitutional authority when you agree with the policy outcome. Just as we can’t be cafeteria Catholics, we don’t get to be cafeteria constitutionalists either. You don’t get to pick which parts of the Constitution you uphold. Now of course constitutions, unlike dogma, can be amended and changed, though I suspect permitting the president of the United States to do whatever he likes whenever he likes would not be an advisable change.

This president has absolutely no regard for the Constitution, and this action only helps underscore this undeniable fact.

53 Responses to What’s a Constitution Between Friends?

  • “So let me say this bluntly: if you approve of the president’s actions in this particular case, then you have absolutely no standing whatsoever to to complain about the constitutionality of the HHS mandate. If you support this action but think the HHS mandate is a tyrannical show of force, then you are a complete hypocrite.”

    Speaking of hypocrites, John Yoo, who famously claimed that a wartime president had the legal authority to torture anyone he wanted, including crushing that child’s testicles, now claims executive overreach on the part of Obama:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303038/executive-overreach-john-yoo

    My own feeling is that the president does in fact have an obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Congress should fund enforcement adequately, but we know they don’t. And when resources are stretched, sometimes the prudent thing to do is go after the worst violators. Obama’s action may or may not be prudent. I’m opposed to the HHS mandate either way.

  • Sometimes I think Obama is the culmination of everything that is evil in this country, and maybe that is part of God’s plan. He must draw unto his person everything that is wicked – media, hollywood, academia, unions, the illegals, abortionists, homosexuals, etc., and when the time comes, all of this will be taken out in one big swoop. I can dream can I?

  • “Sometimes I think Obama is the culmination of everything that is evil in this country…”

    How is this policy/excecutive overreach pertaining to illegal immigrants “evil”? It may be imprudent, it may be unconstitutional for all I know, but I don’t see it as evil. How are illegal immigrants “wicked”?

  • The way in which it is being done Spambot I would say is evil. There are laws on the books regarding deportation. Obama by presidential fiat is now saying that he is not going to enforce those laws. Such action is lawless and goes to the heart of whether we are ruled by law. His action is destructive of the Constitutional order by which Congress makes the law and the Executive, Obama, enforces the law. His action instructs each and every citizen that when you disagree with the law you have the right to ignore it. Yes, evil is the term I would apply to this.

  • Paul

    You missed the latest amendments to the constitution.

    Preamble

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    We, Barrack H Obama, in Order to form a more perfect Commune, establish Fairness, insure domestic Tolerance, provide the Nomenklatura’s Defense, promote the Welfare system, and secure the Benifits of Multiculturism to ourselves and our (unaborted) Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.</i?

    SNIP

    Article 1 Section 8

    1: The Congress shall have Power [Delete to end and replace with] to legislate the wishes of Barrack H Obama

    Snip

    Article II Section 1

    1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Barrack H Obama. He shall hold his Office ,during the Term of four Years, for life

    From
    A new Constitution

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Donald, thank you.

    An analogy: Congress does not fund the IRS sufficiently to audit every income tax return, so the Executive Branch conducts audits on the returns that are flagged as suspicous and/or contain egregious errors. Tax returns of wealthy income earners are more likely than poorer Americans to be audited. Penalties for those caught cheating on returns might differ, too. Those caught cheating in big ways might face criminal prosecution, while those caught cheating in small ways may be let off relatively easy.

    This approach to enforcement of income tax laws does not seem evil, even if Congress did not authorize it.

  • A better analogy Spambot would be the President proposing that the IRS stop auditing tax returns below a certain income threshhold. Legislation to accomplish this is defeated in Congress. The President announces that he will simply order the IRS not to audit such tax returns anyway, any existing laws regarding the auditing of such tax returns to not be enforced by his administration.

    When a President has a blank check not to enforce laws that he does not like we are pretty far down the road to tyranny.

  • Illegal immigration IS a great evil. They know they’re breaking our laws, they know they’re stealing from our treasury, and they know they’re pulling down our workers salaries and eventually taking the bread out of the mouths of OUR children. They are not displaced people – they have a country and they have chosen to invade mine. Their presence in this country is an insult to the proper citizens who ancestors built it and to those who have legally and legitimately entered this country, sometimes taking them years to do so and at the cost of thousands of dollars! They are also willing pawns of a larger agenda of a wicked ruling class that wants to crush and depose the founding people so they can impose their communist agenda! I have very little sympathy for these criminal invaders.

  • D. McCleary ” Obama by presidential fiat is now saying that he is not going to enforce those laws.” Agreed. Just what I was about to say although ” Fiat” dignifies his actions– could just call it “power grab” I am willing to use the term evil.
    Not enforce of DOMA
    Overreach past local school boards
    1st Amendment
    2nd Amendment
    5th Amendment
    Zimmerman endangerred by him
    voter fraud, I.D.
    voter protection
    hope martial law doesn’t occur to his Hench-people

  • The USCCB is a toothless tiger in the fight for the preservation of our Constitutional freedom of the free exercise of religion because in part it openly supports this latest usurpation of due process through Congress:

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-110.cfm

    I am thoroughly disgusted with the American Roman Bishopry. At heart they are Democrat and always will be. Social justice crap has always been more important to them than conversion and repentance.

  • What is more disappointing than Obama’s action is the reaction from the majority of the citizenry and the opposition party. It will be a little hand wringing here and there and then nothing.

    This movie scene is for the bishops council and Spambot…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

    How many more trees are you willing to see cut?

  • Jobs . . .

    Where are the jobs?

    Maybe jobs would be created if he decided to not enforce the penal (as in Federal prison) sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Maybe Obama, the genius, can concoct something – anything – unConstitutional or otherwise, that will create jobs for 23,000,000 Americans who can’t get work.

  • Paul,
    If you want to know what happened to the Catholic Church in this country, please read Bella Dodd’s “School of Darkness”. The Church was infiltrated and compromised a long time ago. With few exceptions, I have no faith in the Bishops to stand tall and fight Obama on the HHS mandate. I believe a schism is coming and the authentic Church will be greatly persecuted. I pray I’m wrong.

    http://catholicism.org/bella-dodd-%E2%80%94-from-communist-to-catholic.html

  • Oh no, Siobhan, you are sadly 100% correct.

    John 6:22-27 describes this people and their Bishopry so very well:

    22 On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 However, boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27* Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

    —–

    This people and their Bishopry are not interested in the Gospel of conversion and repentance. They are not interested in saving souls from the eternal fires of hell (for they believe not that such a place exists except as myth to scare school children). For them the gospel is all about social justice, the common good and peace at any price. Oh how how I despise and loathe those three phrases!

    So they will welcome the illegal immigrant whole heartedly into this nation to suckle off the teat of the public treasury, Constitution and Laws to the contrary be damned, while they, by their inaction on and apathy towards the true Gospel of conversion and repentance, damn the souls of these same immigrants to hell.

    Ezekiel 34:1-10 rings loudly and clearly. The US Council of Catholic Bishops had better start listening in this life because it will be too late before that Great White Throne of Judgment in Revelation 20:11-15.

    No Democracy. No two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner!

  • Interesting observation about the parallel between the cafeteria Catholic phenom and that of the cafeteria Constitutionalist phenom. Neither wants to abide by or acknowledge any authority above its perverse self.

  • Exactly, Paul. In my eyes, when the Bishops support amnesty, they tip their hand and reveal themselves as frauds. They always talk about “welcoming the stranger”, but how about “THOU SHALL NOT STEAL”, which is a mortal sin! The illegals are not only STEALING our money, they are attempting to steal what they did not build in this country, and our sense of nationhood. That the bishops cannot see the obvious tells me that they are either completely out of touch with reality or they are complicit in the destruction of this country. Plus, in catering to the hispanics, they are also dividing the Catholic Church between english speakers and spanish speakers which will be very destructive. Though, with all of this, we musn’t give up hope because there are signs of renewal with the young and dynamic priests and religious coming up today. We’re still in the darkness, but I do see light at the end of the tunnel. I just hope our country will survive.

  • I’ve always been a little bit unclear to the extent to which the executive branch is permitted to determine its priorities when it comes to enforcement of laws. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the United States was not able, because of budgetary constraints, personnel limitations, or some other practical matters, to apply 100 percent effort to the enforcement of all federal immigration and border control laws and regulations. Every deportation costs money and personnel, after all. Is it perhaps within the executive branch’s authority to set enforcement priorities? (E.g. to focus on deportation of people who have committed crimes besides immigration violations, or on people who arrived in the country voluntarily). After all, it is in the legislature’s authority to write laws more stringently and to assign budget dollars more specifically, and it remains with the people to vote an executive out of office if we judge that he sets priorities poorly. And I don’t know — maybe it’s possible for a state to sue the U. S. in the Supreme Court to force enforcement if they can show harm from the feds’ refusal to enforce some part of the law?

    Don’t get me wrong — the *announcement* of such a policy is obviously a campaign move, and I recognize that there are good arguments for why this makes bad immigration policy. But I’m not entirely convinced that priority-setting is outside the bounds of the executive branch’s powers. Yes, the executive branch has a positive obligation under the constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but as we know from Catholic moral doctrine, positive obligations usually come with an “unless.”

  • “this is another power grab that would be impeachable in a saner world.”

    One of the offenses for which Gov. Blago was impeached by the Illinois General Assembly was his attempt to implement a health insurance program for low-income families by executive rulemaking alone, without any approval from the legislature (which had not appropriated any funds to pay for it). The offense was NOT that he tried to obtain healthcare for poor families (a good end) but that he attempted to do so without proper authority (bad means).

    I believe that, as a Catholic, one can argue either way about the justice or injustice of allowing illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as minors (and therefore cannot be faulted for choosing to break the law themselves) to stay. Remember, illegal immigration, in and of itself, is NOT a criminal offense but a civil offense — it is still wrong, but not on the same level as murder, rape or robbery.

    That said, the means which Obama has chosen to do this is wrong even if the end is just or justifiable. The separation of powers must be respected. In my opinion it would be just as wrong if a future president who was a devout Catholic and staunchly pro-life were to attempt to outlaw abortion or gay marriage nationwide by executive fiat alone, without approval of Congress or of the states.

  • Speaking of hypocrites, John Yoo, who famously claimed that a wartime president had the legal authority to torture anyone he wanted, including crushing that child’s testicles, now claims executive overreach on the part of Obama:

    Why not provide quotations verbatim and in context ‘ere making particularly inflammatory remarks?

  • AD:

    Facts!?

    Facts?!

    Obama-worshiping imbeciles don’t need no bloody facts.

    The Executive branch executes laws passed by the Legislative branch. The executive doesn’t have power to ex post facto veto any law nor to pick and choose which law it will enforce and which law it will flaunt.

    Sic semper tyrannis.

    The common good and social justice form the alibis of all tyrants.

    It seems bishops et al place a progressive, liberal temporal narrative ahead of the salvation of souls.

    St. John Chrysostom: “The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

  • So what IS the proper use of an executive order? I am unclear on that. For the record, Archbishop Schnurr didn’t say anything about the president. The quote is from an archdiocesan official.

  • Obama is pandering to just about any groups for votes but what I don’t understand is that Hispanics in general are Catholics & conservatives but yet they support him. I can understand illegals supporting him but most legals do too. Of course, they know many illegals so they don’t want them deported. Why didn’t he do this when the democrats were in control two years ago if he believed in it so strongly. He once said he couldn’t do because it was illegal but, of course, he needs votes.

  • “So what IS the proper use of an executive order?”

    I don’t know all the details of federal law on this question, but based on my own experience in Illinois state government, I would say that executive orders are properly used to manage or change details of a program or policy that has been legislatively authorized, or to reorganize executive agencies (e.g., merge them or change their names). Oftentimes the legislature will authorize a program in law and insert a clause in the law saying that such-and-such agency will have charge of the program AND will adopt rules for it. Also, executive orders in Illinois don’t become effective unless ratified by the legislature within 60 days. Again, this doesn’t directly relate to how federal law works but I’m offering it as an example of how legislative/executive power COULD be balanced (the only example I’m really familiar with).

  • T. Shaw — While I may (or may not) be an imbecile, please do not imply that I am “Obama-worshiping”.

    Art Deco — Do you really need me to introduce you to Mr. Google?

  • No, you do not.

    Mr. Google will introduce me to 1,001 online rants from people like you, about which I do not give a rip and cannot be bothered to read. Show me a published article or intra-office memorandum where he develops an argument which can be fairly characterized the way you do it.

  • Paul Zummo: for what it is worth. June 17, 2012 10:16 AM
    The Mexican constitution forbids Catholicism and therefore, religious freedom. All the illegal Mexican immigrants may have sought political asylum for religious freedom had they been educated to the fact. It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.
    When Obama learns that the Mexican aliens have come to America for freedom of religion, will he allow it?
    Right-wing extremists, as Obama likes to call pro-lifers, returning veterans of war and individual citizens who disagree with him, are trying to save humanity by keeping to “the laws of nature and nature’s God” (from The Declaration of Independence) and by serving “WE, the people”(from The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.) Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius and Obama’s 32 czars, Thomas Malthus, Paul and Ann Erhlich with their book Population Bomb, along with Uncle Hitler are trying to save humanity from extinction by a bloody, and obscene massacre of “our constitutional posterity”.
    The Mexican constitution outlaws the Catholic Church, priests and freedom of religion to this very day to protect freedom for humanity.
    The Mexican government does not give freedom. God gives freedom. The Mexican government does not give life to humanity. God gives life and liberty to His children. The Mexican government tells God how God’s people will experience God. Satan, the devil said: “If you eat the apple you will be like God – infinite.” The Mexican government killed the priests and citizens who dared to profess that Christ is King. The Mexican government tortured and killed a fourteen year old boy for being Catholic. The young man had not reached the age of legal majority, emancipation at eighteen years of age, and is considered to be an infant in a court of law. In “a court of law” is not one of the tenets of the Mexican constitution.
    Will Obama give the Mexican aliens protection from Mexican tyranny, asylum and a homeland to practice their freedom of religion and their free will and their observance of the precepts of their conscience? Will Obama give protection from tyranny to U.S. citizens to practice their freedom of religion, their free will and their observance of the precepts of their conscience?
    Only atheists, secular humanists and communists have religious freedom in the United States. This is why we have no religious freedom to petition Divine Providence in the public square for the blessings of Liberty and prosperity. Only atheists can petition Divine Justice for relief from prayer, other persons’ prayer, other persons’ speech to God, other persons’ assembly to pray, other persons’ petition for Divine Justice. Communism, atheism, and secular humanism is the diabolic intervention of the devil in human affairs.

  • applaud Mary De Voe
    thanks for the great link Siobahn

  • Anzlyne. Many Hail Mary’s for you and yours. Please pray for me and mine, one Hail Mary.
    Siobahn: Let us pray too, that the Cardinals planted by the Communists coverted to the Catholic Church.

  • It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.

    All right, let’s dial it back a little. We haven’t quite reached Soviet status in this country. This administration has been bad enough that we don’t need to exaggerate what has happened.

  • Paul Zummo makes a point we are not quite at the extreme of the soviets, but I do think there are several things communist already in the US.

  • Not sure about the exact relevance of the Mr. Yoo reference, but I did see the piece and Spambot seems pretty accurate about Yoo being comically hypocritical about presidential overreach. But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

  • But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

    No, you are right about that, cmatt. I was just providing a counterbalance to Paul’s inference in the original post that a Catholic bishop was “a complete hypocrite” for supporting this one particular action by Obama while opposing an unrelated action by Obama. I suspect the constitutionality of each action will be determined on grounds unrelated to each other (not that I’m the expert).

    It’s been said that President Bush selected judicial appointees who favored his vision of a strong “unitary executive” — a president with broad and complete authority to execute the laws and prosecute the wars, including the war on terror. My memory is that people on the left complained most about a strong “unitary executive”, while people on the right were generally supportive, because the context was often treatement of captured terrorists. Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

    Anyway, that was all my mind when I read Paul’s piece that I may be a hypocrite.

  • The concept of the “unitary executive” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in our political lexicon. To put it as succinctly as possible, all it means is that the executive branch of the federal government is under a single head – the president of the United States. He is ultimately responsible for all executive decisions of the federal government. So even with the labyrinth bureaucracy that exists today, the buck stops with the presidency, and he and he alone is responsible for executive branch action. It does not mean, and was never meant to imply that the chief executive has plenary decision making power over all the government. He only has the ultimate authority within his own sphere (or branch), a concept that our Founding Fathers would heartily have endorsed.

    So, your counter-example of hypocrisy falls flat.

  • The concept of the “unitary executive” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in our political lexicon.

    Maybe it’s easy for me to get “misunderstood concepts” about the definition or extent of “unitary executive” because of what John Yoo stated in testimony. He said in so many words that unless a treaty or law explicitly forbade the president from crushing a child’s testicles during lawful prosecution of a war, then the president had the power and authority to do so.

    I think my counter-example is a pretty good one: John Yoo is a complete hypocrite for pushing broad powers to the president then, but regretting it now.

  • I think my counter-example is a pretty good one:

    Just thinking it doesn’t make it so.

    John Yoo is a complete hypocrite for pushing broad powers to the president then, but regretting it now.

    Even if your depiction of what he said is true, so what? You’ve proven that another person is a hypocrite. Congratulations, but you haven’t in any way made you or anyone else who supports the president’s actions any less of a hypocrite.

  • By the way, even your example doesn’t exactly hold up as a case of hypocrisy. I think Yoo has a too expansive view of executive authority, but his theoretical exercise is still distinct from the situation under discussion. According to Yoo, presidential authority is expansive absent a Congressional prohibition. In this particular case, President Obama is essentially defying a law enacted by Congress (and passed under previous administrations).

    Of course this is still beside the larger point, but I’ll give you points for trying to change the subject.

  • Even if your depiction of what he said is true, so what? You’ve proven that another person is a hypocrite.

    Paul,

    In your original post, you called out one particular individual as a hypocrite, and then used that as a launching point to say like-minded persons were also hypocrites. I’m just following your lead.

    …but you haven’t in any way made you or anyone else who supports the president’s actions any less of a hypocrite.

    The legal basis/justification for (or against) the HHS mandate would seem to be completely unrelated to the legal basis/justification for (or against) the new amnesty policy. Your original post complained of “usurpation of constitutional authority” which I believe still needs to demonstrated in both instances. My man-in-the-street view of my 1st Amendment rights is that HHS over-reached and intruded into my free exercise of religion.

    On the subject of amnesty, the administration complained of inadequate resources to faithfully execute the laws preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country, and now choose to enforce them selectively, picking on the “worst violators” for severe treatment. The allocation of resources would be more of a judgment call than a constitutional issue.

  • In your original post, you called out one particular individual as a hypocrite, and then used that as a launching point to say like-minded persons were also hypocrites. I’m just following your lead.

    My lead doing what? I said that any individual who holds a certain viewpoint is a hypocrite. Instead of arguing the case, you pointed out another person’s supposed hypocrisy on a completely different issue. What does one have to do with another? This is called a red herring argument.

    The legal basis/justification for (or against) the HHS mandate would seem to be completely unrelated to the legal basis/justification for (or against) the new amnesty policy.

    The point I was trying to make is not that the issues are the same, but that you can’t cry about unconstitutional decision making in one area, and then excuse it another. As I said, you can’t be a cafeteria constitutionalist.

    The allocation of resources would be more of a judgment call than a constitutional issue.

    But it didn’t end there. The president of the United States issued a directive that said a law would not only not be enforced, but went above and beyond to essentially declare that a federal law (or aspect of a law) is nullified. This is far beyond the powers of the presidency.

    By the way, though I disagree with your assessment of the constitutionality of this decision, that’s a legitimate argument to make. This Yoo red herring, on the other hand, doesn’t advance the ball for anybody.

  • …and maybe I should add that if the amnesty action is a constitutional issue and it withstands a court challenge, John Yoo should be the last person to complain.

  • Spam Buddy,

    This is not about John Yoo or illegal immigrant salutatorians being denied the opportunities to give Spanish orations at their graduation ceremonies.

    This is about distracting and confusing the people about Obama’s policies and their horrid effects on Yoo and me.

  • It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.

    All right, let’s dial it back a little. We haven’t quite reached Soviet status in this country. This administration has been bad enough that we don’t need to exaggerate what has happened.
    I was thinking of the aborted children who have had all of their constitutional rights taken from them. These persons have no religious freedom, taken from them by a government that ought to protect them and their constitutional rights.

  • Aside from issues of constitutionality, I oppose the HHS policy outright, but am ambivalent on immigration. I’ve always favored an orderly process for immigration and this new policy has long-term disadvantages in that regard for various reasons people have pointed out. Catholic bishops have supported the DREAM act as “a practical, fair, and compassionate solution for thousands of young persons.” So, the is the basis for my tentative support of the policy, as long as the causes of mercy and justice are served.

    The question about executive overreach is something the courts will need to decide. I don’t think Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati is a hypocrite for expressing his opinions for how these complex matters should be resolved.

  • There are as many as 20 million illegals in the country, according to many estimates. Nobody knows the actual numbers. But what we do know is that they came to America unlawfully and more than 80% are from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
    Mexico, which is responsible for around 57% of the total, has done nothing to stop the unlawful exodus until, ironically, it issued a warning to its citizens not travel to Arizona, which was forced to toughen immigration laws because the federal government failed to do so. Notwithstanding its concern for its own people, Mexico has managed to export drug cartels, kidnapping rings and criminal gangs to the U.S., all of which have rightly caused fear and loathing by lawbiding U.S. citizens.
    When he placed his hand on Lincoln’s Bible back in January 2009, Barack Obama swore to “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States of America. But is he?
    . As Pat Buchanan wrote: “(Obama) is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.
    “He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona’s sheriffs and police do not violate anyone’s civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst. Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.”

  • The question about executive overreach is something the courts will need to decide

    This is a very dangerous attitude. I don’t fault you, spambot, for expressing it because it’s been so deeply rooted into our collective psyche. But the Courts are most definitely not the sole repository for adjudicating constitutional matters. What’s more, when it comes to inter-branch squabbles, the Court is generally reluctant to act.

    So while the Court can intervene, we should shake off this attitude that dictates that we await their say and only their say.

    I don’t think Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati is a hypocrite for expressing his opinions for how these complex matters should be resolved.

    I’m not saying he’s a hypocrite for expressing an opinion, but for being okay with violations of the constitution that are in accord with his personal policy preferences.

  • Thank you, Paul Zummo for responding to my comment. My opinion is dialed back to reset.
    Mary De Voe

  • No worries, Mary. I’ve been known to engage in hyperbole from time to time.

  • Not sure about the exact relevance of the Mr. Yoo reference, but I did see the piece and Spambot seems pretty accurate about Yoo being comically hypocritical about presidential overreach. But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

    The Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice has a handy website providing links to legal opinions issued by the office since 1995 or thereabouts. Included among them are four (4) opinions issued during 2001, 2002, and 2003 bearing the signature of one John Yoo, Esq. I am not an adept of this, so maybe you and Spambot can read through them and tell us all where we can find the text about crushing children’s testicles or something remotely related thereto.

    When you are done with that, maybe we can have a panel discussion between you, Spambot, Mark Shea, Zippy, Daniel Nichols, Ronald Dworkin, and any three members of the Gitmo Bar where you can all discuss the circumstances under which we should have boards of judges on battlefields (helpfully advised by white shoe lawyers and professors) reviewing tactics and strategy.

  • Art Deco,

    John Yoo’s comments that I referenced are not posted to the OLC website that I am aware.

  • Obama is doing what he said he couldn’t and wouldn’t do. He is flaunting the law. I think he (and the DOJ) should be should be impeached. Only..I am afraid that if he were impeached the left thinkers see that he has no support and no leg to stand on, they might try to convince him to let another democrat run instead of him, and then Romney would have a harder time.
    Borrowing trouble?

  • Not to be picky, Anzlyne, but believe you meant “flouting,” not “flaunting.”

  • ok — you are right Joe
    I could say that he flaunts his education and knowledge of the Constitution… : )

  • Joe I hate it when I make mistakes like that because then you look at the mistake and not at the content of the comment. Maybe not such a worthy comment but I’ll ask:

    Are we too close to the end of his term for an impeachment process to get started? Can the actions and authority of the DOJ be scrutinized?
    Even if his time as president is over, shouldn’t an investigation be done, so that our system of government is protected from this kind of breaking the Constitution.

    I hope he is out of office soon, I hope we vote him (and all his appointees out) but I wouldn’t be surprised if the bad guys pull a fast one and try to run someone else if he gets too much more unpopular… or like LBJ, just pull out – then it would be quite a different race

  • Anzlyne,

    Who would they run – Barney Frank?

    Your comment’s content is perfect.

    November must mark the end of an error or the USA could well be finished.

    Re: this latest ill-advised campaign ploy/Exec Order: Which is served social justice or common good for 20,000,000 American citizens and legal immigrants that cannot find work, when the Anointed “Won” doles out extra-special work benefits to 600,000 extraneous persons who absconded into the USA?

    Joe, Did I correctly use the word “absconded”?

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .