“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Does the law give this power to the President?ReplyDelete
At National Review Victor Davis Hanson writes:ReplyDelete
"If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon."
Yes, he has the right. It is totally within the law to set some guidelines on application within the law and the enforcement of the law though the appropriate government agencies. He has done this before. And is even suing states that interfere with his weak enforcement of the law (AL,AZ).ReplyDelete
But its a bit un-presidential to have "mission accomplished" announcement in the Rose Garden. And pandering (it 31/2 years for this urgent action), And of course it's just a gimmick.
Empty suit in full empty suit mode. No overall solutions just thousands of little gimmicks with the shelf life of 5 months.
Some of the Republican Congressmen are going to file a lawsuit, not agreeing with your outlook, and knowing they can't get much past the Senate, and calculating that with holding funds won't work well. So, nothing happens. Except at the election.Delete
Behind that smiling, family man demeanor lurks an ACORN thug.ReplyDelete
Fuckin A; I said he had the right. I did not say that he was right.ReplyDelete
Fuckin' B. The Congressmen are saying he doesn't have the right. And that he is wrong.ReplyDelete
Alas, with so few months to go before election time, nothing will happen.
President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama)…
Imagine the precedent this claim would create. President Romney could lower tax rates simply by saying he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax.He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it.
So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.
But I kinda like this idea - President Romney could lower tax rates simply by saying he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax.
Can't you hear them scream?
Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said Friday that he plans to sue the Obama administration to halt implementation of its newly announced selective illegal immigration law enforcement policy. He told Mike Huckabee on the former Arkansas governor’s radio program Friday that he successfully sued his own state’s governor — and won — over a similar separation-of-powers issue.
“I will tell you that — I’m not without experience on this — I’m prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy,” King said
“I have done it once in the past successfully when then-Governor Tom Vilsack thought he could legislate by executive order — and the case of King vs. Vilsack is in the books. And that individual, by the way, is now the Secretary of Agriculture. I wonder if he’s not counseling the president on his legal proceedings."
If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/if_we_took_the_constitution_seriously_obama_would_be_impeached.html#ixzz1xvUa4dxb
Fat chance, alas.
We gotta vote this guy outta there.
Fuckin' Horse, we spend an hour washing that sucker with hose and sponge and three kinds of soap then put him to pasture and what does he do but immediately find the one spot in it that has dirt and rolls and rolls his fuckin' ass in it still wet and looks worse than when we began.Delete