'I’m Not the King of the U.S. ... or Am I?'

                    “I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not.”  

                                                                               President Obama, Nov. 20, 2014

 

The liberty that Americans have known since 1789 rests on nothing more firm than an understanding.

That understanding is embodied in a brief 15-page document -- the Constitution.

It was an understanding reached by men who feared both one-man rule and mob rule, and who therefore intentionally separated executive, legislative and judicial powers.

It is an understanding reached by the statesmen who feared kings -- kings who claimed to rule by “divine right,” and whose fiat was law.

It is an understanding reached by men who believed that the American people through their elected Congressional representatives ought make their own laws.

It is an understanding under which the President’s law-making power was limited to “recommending  to (Congress for) their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” and to vetoing bills passed by Congress, to prevent their enactment.

It is an understanding under which the President’s duty as executive would be “to take care that laws enacted by Congress be faithfully executed.”

It is an understanding that Congressmen, judges, and the president would make a solemn oath to observe the Constitution prior to taking office.  Indeed, the president takes the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In short, the freedom and liberty of every American rests upon nothing more than a fragile understanding” written on a 15-page scrap of paper.

Note that there is nothing in Article VI, Section 2 about executive orders or other presidential fiats being the supreme law of the land.

This president knows that. Indeed, he has said so some 22 times! Here are just two examples:

 “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. ... When it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law.” -- Jan. 30, 2013

 “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” — Feb. 14, 2013.

(Read all 22 of his declarations at speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law#sthash.ErCRBgJk.dpuf.)

Mr. Obama makes many arguments in favor of his immigration executive order.
In the main, they include that:

       -- He needed to act by executive order out of compassion for the illegal immigrants and their children.

     -- He needed to act by “decree” for the good of the American people, because the “system was broken;” i.e., because the House would not pass the Senate’s proposed immigration bill that he favored.

Our Constitution gives a president no power to take the lawn into his hands,  out of  “compassion” for the illegal immigrants and their children, for the good of the American people, or  because Congress was “broken,” or wasn’t acting fast enough to suit him.

“I acted alone for the good of the state,” “I acted alone out of necessity;” these are the traditional justifications of dictators.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.” William Pitt, the Younger, 1783.

But what is the present necessity? This is the same president who for the first two years of his term had absolute majorities in both houses of Congress, and who could have had Congress pass  immigration reform just as it passed Obamacare.

The president would answer, “To those members of  Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

But what about, “I’m not a king” or “I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed”?

Where is it stated the president can take the law into his own hands where Congress fails to act, or to please him?

Mr. Obama also justifies his actions alleging that President Bush also made executive orders pertaining to immigration. USA Today (Nov. 21) debunks that:

“But where the two presidents largely agreed on the principles and policy, they diverged in strategy. While Bush issued a number of small-bore executive orders -- to expedite citizenship for immigrants in the military, or to defer deportation for students affected by Hurricane Katrina -- his speech called on Congress to act.”

It comes to this: if any president can make orders which have the force of law with his pen, then we have lost our republic and have replaced it with a one-man dictatorship. And what the king can do for you today, he can do against you tomorrow!

Posted Online:  Dec, 1, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea