Obama 2011: "The law prevents me from unilaterally halting deportations." One year later he does just that.

Further to my previous post, the Weekly Standard ran a piece entitled "Lawlessness in the Executive."  

The author noted that at a spring 2011 Univision town hall [Univision is a Mexican TV network] Obama was asked why he didn’t simply issue an executive order to halt the deportation of young illegal aliens. Obama replied,

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books. .  .  . Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. .  .  . There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.

But then just a year later--five months before the election--the Obama administration announced that it would no longer deport illegals under the age of 30 who had been brought into the United States by their parents before age 16. 

That is, it would no longer enforce a valid U.S. law.

This has huge--in fact, staggering--implications.  And media articles suggest that only a tiny fraction of Americans grasp that.  For those of you in the latter group, Obama's order was--by his own admission--pure lawlessness.  His speech to the Univision audience shows he explicitly recognized the law, and that it was illegal--in fact, unConstitutional--for him to use an executive order to ignore it.  But then just a year later he proceeded to do exactly that.

Barely a third of you know this happened.  Of those who know, only a fraction recognized the potentially fatal implications for the nation.  Because if a president intentionally breaks one law, and pays no price, what is to prevent him from doing it again?

The answer, of course, is nothing.  And at that point we are no longer being led by a president, but ruled by an emperor.

And sure enough, just before July 4 Obama unilaterally ordered that the crucial "employer mandate" of Obamacare—its requirement that most businesses give government-approved health insurance to their employees--would not begin on the January 1st, 2014 date specified in that controversial law, but would be delayed for a year.

In refusing to obey this provision of the law Obama invited the question of whether a future Republican president could do the same thing.  When he was asked whether a later president could “pick and choose whether they’ll implement your law and keep it in place,” Obama offered this astonishing--and revealing-- reply: “I didn’t simply choose to delay this on my own. This was in consultation with businesses all across the country.” 

Let that sink in.  Apparently Obama--purportedly a lecturer of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago?--thinks that even though Article II of the Constitution commands the president to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed," what it really means is "unless I and some businessmen decide that's not necessary."

The Standard article claims that "In truth, Americans do support and believe in the law."  Uh, no.  Most Americans--and almost all Democrats--believe whatever the White House and the Democratic party say.  

For example, in Benghazi someone ordered the military not to respond.  But *supposedly* no one can find the government official who gave that order.  It just "appeared" out of thin air.  Supposedly four state department employees were fired for negligece.  Closer investigation found this was a lie, that the four had merely been transferred.  Now Kerry has quietly reinstated them.  And still no one in government will say what really happened.

And most Americans couldn't care less.

Most Americans have as much understanding of the law and the Constitution as the average cocker spaniel.  And of course this is no accident, but has been the predictable effect of decades of the schools gradually removing all study of the founding principles of this nation, and of the Constitution.

Most Americans believe the Mainstream Media.  If the media dismiss partisan Democrat IRS hacks using the power of the agency against conservative organizations, most Americans couldn't care less.  If the media applauds Obama's breaking of U.S. laws, so do the lemmings.

Example: a couple of weeks after Obama unilaterally declared that Obamacare's employer mandate would be delayed a year, the House of Representatives proposed to actually change the law to do that.  Surely you knew that, right?

Then you also know how the Obama administration responded:  It called the legislation “unnecessary” and said if it was passed, Obama would veto it. 

To review:  Obama was willing to break the law, but when congress offered to ratify his unilateral order by actually going to the significant effort of changing the law to agree, Obama not only said that was unnecessary but also said he'd veto any such act!  This is the act of a would-be emperor.

In fact, 35 Democrats in the House joined Republicans in passing that legislation in the House. 

Now here's the kicker: Several weeks later Obama—acting as if he hadn't rejected the offer by the House, and even threatened to veto it—declared that, in “a normal political environment” he could easily have gotten the House to pass legislation delaying the employer mandate.  But he claimed he had no choice but to act unilaterally because "we’re not in a normal political atmosphere.”

You heard about all that, right?  No, of course you didn't--because the mainstream media only mentioned on page 73, below the ad for used cars.  What you did hear was endless bullshit from the mainstream media about "Republican obstructionism."  And most Americans bought it completely.  Because most Americans are totally clueless about politics, the law and the Constitution.

Funny, funny stuff.  Unless you have kids, of course.

And even most Democrats who have kids don't see any problem with all this.

"Pure lawlessness."

Footnote:  After congressional members of both parties soundly rejected Obama’s claim that a president has the authority to unilaterally change provisions of laws, Obama told the New York Times, “If Congress thinks what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion they’re free to make that case.   But ultimately I’m not concerned about their opinions.  Very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.”

This is a pure attempt at intimidation, and vintage Obama:  First, it's bullshit:  More members of the House are lawyers--something like 40 percent--than any other profession.  And his line about few of them being Constitutional lawers was an attempt to trade on his alleged experience as a lecturer in that subject.

But of course he clearly either doesn't know jack-shit about the Constitution, or else doesn't care.  IMHO one of those is grounds for endless derision; the other is grounds for impeachment.