Constitutional Crises Expected if Threat Carried Out
Just back from his controversial trip to Asia where he made a lopsided deal with China on the environment that will punish American businesses and penalize financially American consumers, President Obama has threatened to unilaterally and unconstitutionally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants as early as this week.
The administration has already created a legacy of lies and deception to win elections and pass legislation. It, therefore, would not be difficult for Mr. Obama to sign an Executive Order granting amnesty to millions of new Democrat voters. Even if the Executive Order were declared unconstitutional by a future president or the Supreme Court, politically and practically, it would be virtually impossible to reverse such an action.
The President is on record saying such action as he is planning would be unconstitutional. He is now under so much pressure from Hispanics and the Progressive Democrat leaders that he apparently believes he must act alone. After all, the future of Democrat rule is dependent upon building a majority of voters dependent on government programs that can be used to control the dependent voters.
Continuing to have an open border and granting amnesty to all that will come illegally is a long-range Progressive Democrat strategy. Implementation of the strategy would destroy the Republican Party and ensure Democrat domination of the country for decades to come.
Reaction to the threat by Republicans is not yet clear, nor is the extent of the Obama action clear. Pressure applied to individual lawmakers by their constituents will likely determine action taken to stop the President by Republicans who will control both houses of Congress beginning in January.
Unless there is an uprising of citizens in opposition to the President’s actions, Congress will likely do nothing more than talk and pass meaningless bills.
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., labeled the President’s proposed actions as “unacceptable.”
“Just days after claiming he wants to work with Congress, Once again, the president is ignoring the will of the American people by bypassing Congress,” Meadows said.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa responded with strong words.
“The audacity of this president to think he can completely destroy the rule of law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to me. It is unconstitutional, It is cynical and it violates the will of the American people. Our republic will not stand if we tolerate a president who is set upon the complete destruction of the rule of law.”
“The President must abandon his my-way-or–the-highway approach and instead work constructively with Congress. He must reject unilateralism and demonstrate a willingness to enforce the law, even when he may prefer a different policy outcome,” said Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah.
Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., is not returning to congress next year. She has some advice for her colleagues.
“President Obama’s policies were flatly rejected last week at the polls. Voters didn’t demand that President Obama unilaterally issue work permits to millions of illegal immigrants to take jobs Americans want and need. Republicans need to stand for the American worker and against lawless executive amnesty.”
“Obama is threatening the lives of children and fueling border violence,” said Rep. Steve Stockman. R-Tex. “His decision to not enforce the law will drive more parents to send their kids here illegally, fueling sex trafficking and putting cash in the pockets of violent drug lords.”
There is wide agreement that this action would be an impeachable offense, however president Obama apparently is secure in the belief that Republicans would not dare impeach the first “Black” president, although he is only half black.
If the President follows through with his threat to keep his promise to the Hispanics, the Congress will most likely use restriction of funds as a method of retaliation. In that case, he will probably ignore the restraints and use money from national defense or elsewhere to accomplish his goals.
Once the United States Constitution is intentionally circumvented, why would the President hesitate to violate another law?
Why would a bank robber worry about driving off without paying for gasoline needed for his getaway car?
