Despite multiple documented admissions by Obama that he can't simply change
immigration laws unilaterally, because "we are a nation of laws" and "have a
separation of powers," it appears that he will, through executive order, change
US immigration law.
In his previous explanations to Hispanic audiences about the Constitutional
limits to what he can do by himself to reform US immigration law, he
acknowledged that this would be unconstitutional. Even though he was not a law
professor, Obama graduated from law school and was an instructor in a University
of Chicago law school course on the 14th Amendment, so he should have a working
knowledge of the US Constitution.
If he felt unilateral presidential action such as this was unconstitutional in
the past, what has changed? Certainly not the Constitution.
I understand the reluctance of Republicans to use the "I" word: impeachment.
They have been convinced that it would hurt them in the eyes of American
citizens. Members of Congress, however, take the same oath Obama did to "protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."
If Obama violates the Constitution, does not any member of the House of
Representatives, faithful to his oath of office, have a duty to at least
consider impeachment?
Even liberal George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley, an Obama
political supporter, says that actions Obama is considering are dangerous to the
very foundation of our country. He characterizes Obama's actions as contributing
to an "uber presidency" against which the Founding Fathers tried to protect us.
If threatening the foundation of our constitutional republic isn't a "high
crime," worthy of impeachment, what is? Bank robbery wouldn't endanger the
nation.
It's an interesting dilemma for a Congressman to need to consider impeachment of
a president who cannot, for obvious reasons, be impeached.
No comments:
Post a Comment