Our wannabee sovereign will address the nation this evening
We’ve been waiting for this for quite some time, haven’t we?
For months Obama has been saying, “I’m gonna do it, I’m really gonna do it—unless of course you give me what I want.” He even told us the timing; it would be after the election. So he had made a promise to his radical base (Hispanic and otherwise) and a threat to the Republicans in Congress, as well as thumbing his nose to the American voters who had expressed disapproval of him on November 4. You don’t get a trifecta like that every day from a president.
I wrote that what Obama is about to do is a threat to Republicans in Congress. But actually, it’s a threat to Congress itself. Democrats should be just as disturbed as Republicans by it, because it’s not the ends that are as important here as the very dangerous means. But if you’ve listened to most Democrats talk about it, you’d think ends are all they care about—and for most, it is.
Obama has the strong support of leading Democrats, who seem only too happy to cede the power of Congress to the president to get something they think will benefit the Party. Of course, they don’t state that it’s a dangerous executive power overreach; they say this is just like what other presidents have done when they use their executive discretion to tweak immigration laws. Surely they must be aware of the differences. But being aware has nothing to do with it; ideologues of the left have no trouble telling themselves that 2 + 2 = 5, and that what Reagan and Bush did was just the same as what Obama is poised to do now, even though only political junkies have even heard of the former actions before because they were relatively non-controversial.
Suddenly there are tons of articles from the left explaining how Obama is only doing exactly the same as what Reagan and Bush did with their executive orders on immigration. The left has its talking points and marching orders, and is dutifully complying. And of course there are many from the right explaining why this action of Obama’s promises to be radically (in every sense of the word) different.
Frum summarizes the differences here, and they are substantial:
Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose. In 1986, Congress passed a full-blown amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, conferring residency rights on some 3 million people. Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as a “once and for all” solution to the illegal immigration problem: amnesty now, to be followed by strict enforcement in future. Precisely because of their ambition, the statute’s authors were confounded when their broad law generated some unanticipated hard cases. The hardest were those in which some members of a single family qualified for amnesty, while others did not. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies. Although Simpson-Mazzoli itself had been controversial, neither of these follow-ups was…
…[Obama’s about-to-be announced action] would not further a congressional purpose. It is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress…
Another summary is here:
Reagan and Bush…made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent.
…In short, while Reagan and Bush worked closely with Congress to implement the comprehensive legislation that Congress had passed (in the case of Reagan) or would pass shortly thereafter (in the case of Bush), Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unconstitutionally revising existing law and, without Congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress time and time again, thereby setting himself up as a kingmaker (or king) on immigration policy.
By doing so, the president is establishing a dangerous precedent that violates fundamental principles of separation of powers that serve as a bulwark to protect our liberties and that established a government of laws and not of men.
That’s not the only way that Obama’s action is unique, and uniquely awful. I can’t think of another case in which a president himself has made the case that an action is unconstitutional, and made it repeatedly while in office, and then reversed himself and said it’s perfectly constitutional because he’s grown impatient and wants to do it. Obama himself has clearly said, over and over (22 times, to be exact), that he can’t do it. But we are supposed to forget that, like those Soviet photos that removed Communists who had incurred the wrath of the Party and become unpersons.
Let’s hear the opinion of a legal expert who happens to mostly agree with Obama’s ends, but deplores Obama’s means in the very strongest of terms. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, says, “It’s a very sad moment, but it’s going to become a particularly dangerous moment.” When asked specifically about resemblances to Reagan and Bush’s executive actions on immigration, he says simply and unequivocally, “this would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers within our system.”:
Reports of the death of the republic are perhaps premature. But it is in critical condition. Much will depend on the reactions of Republicans, and on whether a significant number of other liberals join Turley (for example, even Ruth Marcus, of all people, is at least uneasy about the precedent being set by Obama) in expressing condemnation, and joining with Republicans to fight Obama with great vigor and intelligence.
[ADDENDUM: Paul Mirengoff at Powerline further explains the details of just how different the executive actions of Reagan and Bush were from that Obama is about to issue:
The Act [passed by Congress in 1986] also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”
Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term “family unity” as calling for the maintenance of the “family group.” Family group was defined as including “the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.” Thus, not all spouses and children were included.
This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).
House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.
Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.]
And there I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Dems no longer see themselves functioning as representatives of the citizenry which elected them; they see themselves in a condescending Gruber mode as party affiliates first and Americans second.
Harry Reid has made the point abundantly clear as he has seen fit to run the Senate as an extension of the White House for the past several years. Winning as a Democrat is more important to them than governing as an American.
So the next Republican president can just “adjust” the tax laws to his liking and the Dems can just sit down and shut up.
Obama is about to cross the Rubicon from being a clown to a very dangerous man.
Q: Mr. President, what are the three branches of government?
Obama: Me, myself, and I.
The Hussein O Imperial Regime Speaks.
The People Will Kneel Down and Obey.
Or Else.
Obama, the great constitutional scholar with no significant publications or other scholarly works to his name. No accomplishments as a legislator. The man who voted “present” in order to hide his proclivities.
Perhaps Gruber is correct. Americans are stupid. We voted for Obama twice, didn’t we. We have sowed the seeds of our own destruction and they have sprouted. Is it too late to pull out the Roundup?
From a creepily prophetic depression era movie. It’s said that FDR himself tweaked the script.
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/274394/Gabriel-over-the-White-House-Movie-Clip-Dictatorship-.html
Sadly, what is being “preached” here is being done to – and by – the choir. Half of the people of this nation who need to hear these things presented in this manner never will. Many who could hear it, won’t believe it as their ideology is thoroughly soaked in left wing jive.
The man’s native language is prevarication. All that he’s ever said that had not been anti-European, anti-American, anti-Constitutional anti-Christian, anti-white, is belied by everything he has done. That so many are still in his camp, that so many would have him again and again, is, ipso facto, evidence that this country is now in the midst of a third revolution (1. War Between The States; 2. The FDR Imperium – see Armchair pessimist’s link) to overthrow the first. I repeat, for nothing more than effect, revolutions are never voted out. They have to be dealt with by reactionaries and counter-revolution.
skeneogden:
But the idea is that there will never be another Republican president, so they have nothing to worry about.
One party rule is the goal. If Democrats have the presidency locked up, it doesn’t matter if Congress is Republican, as long as the president rules Congress.
Wikipedia:
“Controversial since the time of its release, ‘Gabriel Over the White House’ is widely acknowledged to be an example of totalitarian propaganda. Tweed, the author of the original novel, was a “liberal champion of government activism” and trusted adviser to David Lloyd George, the Liberal Prime Minister who brought Bismarck’s welfare state to the United Kingdom.
The decision to buy the story was made by producer Walter Wanger, variously described as “a liberal Democrat” or a “liberal Hollywood mogul.” After two weeks of script preparation, Wanger secured the financial backing of media magnate William Randolph Hearst, one of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s staunchest supporters, who had helped him get the Democratic presidential nomination and who enlisted his entire media empire to campaign for him. Hearst intended the film to be a tribute to FDR and an attack on previous Republican administrations.
Released only a few weeks after Franklin Roosevelt’s inauguration, the film was labeled by The New Republic “a half-hearted plea for Fascism.” Its purpose, agreed The Nation, was “to convert innocent American movie audiences to a policy of fascist dictatorship in this country.” Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter concurred in 2007 that the movie was meant to “prepare the public for a dictatorship,” as well as to be an instructional guide for FDR, who read the script during the campaign.
He liked it so much that he took time during the hectic first weeks of his presidency to suggest several script rewrites that were incorporated into the ï¬lm.
“An aroma of fascism clung to the heavily edited release print,” according to Leff. Roosevelt saw an advance screening, writing, “I want to send you this line to tell you how pleased I am with the changes you made in ‘Gabriel Over the White House.’ I think it is an intensely interesting picture and should do much to help.” Roosevelt saw the movie several times and enjoyed it.
After a private screening, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt wrote that “if a million unemployed marched on Washington… I’d do what the President does in the picture!”
Alter comments: “That the Rooseveltian hero of the popular film was a dictator must have seemed an advantage to the real-life president. It would help pave the way for precipitous action, if the role required it.”
In the crisis of the Great Depression, many people suggested that dictatorship might be necessary to save the United States. While Roosevelt’s adversaries feared the possibility of “totalitarian New Dealism,” some of FDR’s supporters had no such qualms: though he resented the suggestion, Roosevelt was often seen in the 1930s as a “benevolent dictator.”
First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt “lamented that the nation lacked a benevolent dictator to force through reforms.”
Influential columnist Walter Lippmann told Roosevelt, “The situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers”; in his column, Lippmann wrote, “The more one considers the scope and the variety of the measures that are needed for relief and reconstruction the more evident it is that an extraordinary procedure–’dictatorial powers,’ if that is the name for it–is essential…”
In his inaugural address, FDR said: “If we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because, without such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good.”
The American people, he added, “have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.” (my emphasis)
I agree Armchair pessimist, it is creepily prophetic.
“But the idea is that there will never be another Republican president, so they have nothing to worry about.”
Exactly, Neo. Which is why this is “the hill to die on” for the GOP if it wants to exist in the future.
We’ve only heard estimates of the number of illegals in this country – seems that 10-11 million number has been used for decades. Yet Obama’s DHS recently requested bids for 34 million work visas for illegal immigrants. An influx/amnesty of that size would fundamentally transform our country, especially politics and elections. Maybe Obama won’t accept all of them with tonight’s EO, but it’s clearly the end game.
Sadly, what is being “preached” here is being done to — and by — the choir. Half of the people of this nation who need to hear these things presented in this manner never will. Many who could hear it, won’t believe it as their ideology is thoroughly soaked in left wing jive.
It’s worse than that — our entire popular culture is soaked in that jive.
And speaking of choirs, just think of all the school choirs across the country that sing their little hearts out on John Lennon’s Imagine.
Autist,
The three branches of govt. That is really good!
Perhaps President Obama really does want to find out if he’s unimpeachable. (If so, one can only wonder what he’ll do next!)
It is EXTREMELY unfortunate that impeachment, that final tool for removal of a despot, has been politicized to the point that it is seen ONLY as a nakedly partisan act, not to be used for any legitimate purpose.
We’ll see what happens. No offense, Neo, but we’ve heard dire warnings about President Obama before, e.g. that after the 2012 elections, he’d hand down draconian executive orders in re gun control. Executive orders there certainly were… and they were incompetent and toothless, and made very little difference at all.
I certainly agree that President Obama seems capable of trampling the Constitution. We’ll see tonight if he’s actually going to do it or not.
Bho is most definitely ready to put the Constitution through the paper shredder. The left hates the very idea of the rule of law as they much prefer the rule of an elite cabal.
“But the idea is that there will never be another Republican president, so they have nothing to worry about.”
Almost right… a lot of Republicans have very similar ways of viewing things. I think that the idea is that only those with the “right ideas” will ever be in power again. There might be two parties, but if so they will differ in only slight ways because there is no other civilized way to think.
I hope that’s not true but OTOH I do not want a revolution. I think a revolution or a huge outside thing we had to react to (ie, an immense war) would change the course. But you never know, history usually surprises.
There might be two parties, but if so they will differ in only slight ways because there is no other civilized way to think.
Similar to Tories and Labour in Britain. Against the uKIP, the only real party that wishes to preserve British civilization is the UKIP, extremist or not.