The former Constitutional Republic of the United States of America will officially be declared ended tonight with the announcement of the ascension to the Throne Of Man by His Imperial Majesty Barrack Hussein Obama I (PBUH). His final assumption of ultimate dictatorial power will occur this evening with the issuance of Royal Decree Number One, actually his fifth or sixth (or twenty-fifth) imperial edict, depending on who’s doing the scoring. Republicans in Congress are believed to be considering a name-change for the former Republic as “the only means of stopping him, by proving they can govern and reaching out to work with our friends across the aisle” to end “gridlock” and “partisanship.”
But Obama’s announcement of the suspension of the Constitution tonight is only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to see the most brazen display of sheer reckless chutzpah and deceit yet, wait till you get a load of how these despicable charlatans have decided to justify it. The reasonable person can only stand back and marvel in gobsmacked, speechless awe.
You just have to love how the Left plays their game.
As the nation braces for President Obama to issue a patently un-constitutional executive order granting amnesty to, as reports would have it some five million illegals, liberals across the spectrum rush to defend him by saying…wait for it…”Reagan did it too!” In fact, President Obama is saying this as seen here in USA Today.
Well, no. Reagan did most definitely not do it too.
As everyone knows, in 1986 President Reagan signed into law the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, known officially as The Immigration and Control Act. We’ll come back to that at a later time – the law did not work as Reagan intended (hint: No border security as promised). But for immediate purposes it is important to know that in signing the bill Reagan’s presidential signature made the bill a law – a statute. Presidents cannot pass laws unilaterally. That’s the job of the Congress per the Constitution, as every American school child is suppose to learn early on. What presidents can do – must do if a bill is to become law – is sign the bill. That’s what Reagan did.
Presidents also have the job of interpreting the statute they are sworn to uphold. So sworn by the presidential oath in which they “do solemnly swear” to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States …” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
What is the difference between Reagan and Obama? Reagan’s action was in accordance with the law – the statute. The very law that he had signed after – say again after – it was passed by Congress. What President Obama is about to do is unilaterally write the law – as if he were writing or re-writing a statute – all by himself.
It is (as) if President Reagan woke up one fine morning and said “Gee, that Simpson-Mazzoli bill is stuck over there in Congress and they aren’t listening to me. I think I’ll just sign an executive order that makes Simpson-Mazzoli law. Gosh, it’s good to be king!”
What President Obama is about to do is effectively declare himself the Emperor of the United States. And it will be up to Republicans in the House and Senate to say the obvious: the Emperor has no clothes, much less the constitutional power to do what he says he is going to do.
Lets get this off the table immediately. No. No, no and no again, no matter what the Associated Press says – no matter what the Obama minions say – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush most assuredly did not do this. There is no precedent – period.
Ah, but that’s not what Democrat Socialists consider to be important. What matters more to them is whether they can get anyone to believe there is. As Mark Krikorian says: “‘Precedent’ isn’t the right word for the Obama crowd’s invocation of Reagan. The right word is ‘pretext.’” More:
The Reagan administration action that amnesty advocates point to is simply irrelevant to the current case and trumpeted only because Reagan’s name is attached to it. In what was a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion shortly after passage of the 1986 law, INS announced that as a practical matter it would look the other way under certain circumstances with regard to minor children both of whose parents received amnesty but who did not themselves qualify for the amnesty. It granted no work permits, Social Security numbers, or driver’s licenses. In the context of trying to implement the convoluted IRCA amnesty, I might well have done the same thing.
George H. W. Bush’s 1990 “family fairness” policy is at least somewhat germane, in that it provided for renewable “voluntary departure” (i.e., amnesty) for certain spouses and children of amnesty beneficiaries, including work authorization. But it is no precedent either, for three main reasons:
First, its size and scope. Despite claims at the time that “as many as 1.5 million” illegal aliens might benefit from the policy, the actual number was much, much smaller. In 1990, Congress passed legislation granting green cards to “legalization dependents” — in effect codifying the executive action Bush had taken a just few months earlier. That (lawful) measure actually cast the net wider than Bush’s action, and yet only about 140,000 people took advantage of it — less than one-tenth the number advocates claim. Scale matters here; Bush’s action cannot meaningfully be described as a precedent for Obama’s scheme that would be 30 or 40 times larger.
Second, both Reagan’s and Bush’s moves were cleanup measures for the implementation of the once-in-history amnesty that was passed by Congress. In other words, it was a coda, a tying up of loose ends, for something that Congress had actually enacted, and thus arguably a legitimate part of executing the law — which is, after all, the function of the executive. Obama’s threatened move, on the other hand, is directly contrary to Congress’s decision not to pass an amnesty. In effect, Bush was saying “Congress has acted and I’m doing my best to implement its directives,” while Obama is saying “Congress has not done my bidding, so I’m going to implement my own directives.”
Finally, in the same 1990 immigration law that codified Bush’s “family fairness” directive, Congress rejected further ad hoc presidential amnesties by creating Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The various unilateral actions presidents had taken to amnesty small groups of illegal aliens over the years — Extended Voluntary Departure and Deferred Enforced Departure were among the Orwellian euphemisms deployed — were clearly seen as abuses of the discretion which Congress granted the president. TPS was intended to limit that discretion in granting legal status, including work permits, to illegal aliens, by limiting such grants to clearly specified circumstances — such as when a country suffered an earthquake or hurricane — and imposing specific procedures upon the executive. And to make certain that future executive actions didn’t simply become a means of naturalizing entire populations of illegal aliens, the TPS law requires any bill addressing naturalization of TPS recipients has to pass the Senate with a 60 percent super-majority.
It is absurd for Obama to claim that the very executive overreach that prompted Congress to impose these limits established a precedent for even greater executive overreach today.
Well, as history hath shewn, when you’re putting the finishing touches on destroying a nation and Fundamentally Transforming™ it into a banana republic, any pretext will do.
Keep that powder dry, folks; opening day for the season on dictators and Democrat Socialists (sorry for the redundancy) draws ever more nigh, and I’m sure you’ll all be wanting to bag the limit. Metaphorically speaking, of course.