A president of any party can do whatever he or she wants, regardless, of what the Constitution states, if he or she holds the reigns of executive power at the same time that there is either a supportive or weak and compliant legislature. Our system in such an instance relies heavily upon the judicial branch to exercise its power and roll back the excesses of such a president, but it wouldn't happen immediately. The Supreme Court is not going to instruct a bailiff or "army" of bailiff's to bring the president before them either willingly or in handcuffs.
Our current president, thought by many to be a "constitutional law scholar" told various audiences on more than 20 separate occasions that the Constitution didn't provide him with the power to make what would amount to unilateral changes to our immigration laws either through interpretation or lack of enforcement. A number of these occasions involved appearences by the president on Univision and Telemundo and interviews by the, if nothing else, dogged Jorge Ramos who repeatedly asked Mr. Obama why he had not delivered on his campaign promises of immigration reform.
In October of 2010 he told Univision:
Quote:“My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately, I think somebody said the other day, I am president, I am not king,”
In March of 2011 he told Univision:
Quote:"America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … 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 that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the 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.”
And
Quote:“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”
In January of 2013, he told Telemundo the following; correctly reiterating that he was not a king.
“I’m not a king. My job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. When it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law.”
In February of 2013 he was again pressed by Telemundo on the issue and again explained that he was not a king:
Quote:“I can’t do these things just by myself. I’m not a king.”
However, in November 2014 he signaled that it was his intention to address immigration reform through the power and means granted to him as the nation's chief executive.
When reminded by reporters of the numerous times he had publicly stated that he didn't have the authority to make unilateral changes to our immigration laws, and asked how and why his position had changed.
His disingenuous response, which might have been truly stunning if it wasn't predictable in terms of politicians in general and him in particular, was:
Quote:"Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress"
What was stunning, at least to me, was that the NY Times, the Washington Post and FactCheck.org not only didn't give him a pass on his flip-flop or lie (your choice), they called him out on it:
The Times wrote:
Quote:“In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days.",
WaPo's fact checker came to the same conclusion and awarded him the Upside-Down Pinocchio, reserved for "major-league flip flops," and wrote:
Quote:“The questions (which repeatedly prompted the I'm not a king response) actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now...”
As we have seen, apparently the judiciary, upon being called into action to address the excesses of a companion branch of our government preferred the reasoning of the constitutional law scholar who had a second term to win and then slog through, to that of the professional politician who as his own greatest admirer had a legacy to attend to .
I suppose an argument can be made that we should view this with comfort and satisfaction that the relatively slow, but measured system of checks and balances works as intended.
However, such comfort and/or satisfaction would miss the fact that the Supreme Court's decision that effectively upheld the ruling of a lower court which affirmed that the president of the United States is not a king, was a result of a tie, and the fortuitous intervention of procedure which effectively translates a tie in the highest court as affirmation of the lower court's decision. I'm sure some will argue it does no such thing, but however one wishes to view it, the result is the same: The lower court's ruling that our current Chief Executive and Commander in Chief is President Obama and not King Barrack.
It's difficult to imagine how the liberal justices found it possible to find a distinction that even the NY Times and Washington Post essentially ridiculed, but perhaps as the
real constitutional law scholars, they weren't impressed by the legal reasoning of Professor Obama, pronounced and explained 22 times in public.
In these unfortunate and divisive times constitutional crises are not likely to find a largely united front consisting of one or both branches remaining in sync with their oaths, a press that is able to even recognize their biases, let alone put them aside when discharging their crucial responsibility, and a citizenry who seem less concerned about the health and future of the nation, than whether or not
their side wins.
I anticipate some push-back from those who believe that Obama's plan to do an end run on Congress and overstep the limits imposed on him by the Constitution can't, in any way, be considered a constitutional crisis. However, I also anticipate any such voices to, largely, belong to the very sort of citizens, I've described herein, the ones who too often minimize lies and accept the deceit of political leaders in which they have invested a major component of their identity. When
their politicians win,
their ideology wins and, more importantly,
they win. For a smaller group it is not only vitally important that they win (and by any means necessary,
if necessary), but it is of an equal if not greater imperative, that
the other side loses.
It's a distorted focus that isn't only an affliction of Democrats and liberals. I not only see it manifest itself in the willingness of friends and acquaintents to minimize the deep flaws of Donald Trump, for the much anticipated and desired fall of Hillary Clinton, I'll freely admit that it's not been easy for me to resist that pull, and that more than once I've found myself starting down that road. However none of us have to go down that road and if we at all recognize it's there calling to us, then shame on any of us who follow it.
The notion of an acceptable
lesser of two evils is, to begin with, unsupportable. Once someone earns the label of "evil" (and I use the word in the context of how the phrase is commonly employed not, necessarily, as a descriptor for a person of malevolence) they shouldn't be acceptable, under any circumstance.
Now if you insist that your support for Trump or Clinton is based on the sincere belief that they are worthy of the office and will make good president (and not just that they will make a marginally
better president than the other) then go ahead and vote for them with a clear conscious. I, obviously, strongly question your judgment and disagree with you, but either I'm completely wrong (always a decent bet) or you have completely deluded yourself.
If, however, you are a Republican who is voting for Trump or a Democrat voting for Clinton because even though you recognize the deep and serious flaws they have, you're going to go with the "lessor of two evils" I would hope you keep rolling that around in your head; that you keep gnawing on that bone.
There is an entirely principled alternative. Don't vote for either of them.
Vote for a minor party candidate who you can feel proud about supporting even though there is no reason to belief for one minute that they can win. You will not be throwing away your vote.
The people who tell you this are either delusional or have decided, for whatever reason, to dance with their party's devil, and they desperately want their devil to win.
The same goes for the false argument that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump or a write-in vote Mitch Daniels, or any politician you respect, is a vote for Hillary Clinton. It most certainly isn't. It's a vote for someone who you sincerely believe will make a good leader of our country, and not just the least evil one.
The one thing you shouldn't do is stay home and not vote, because this is throwing away your vote.
If you don't vote you've not registered your displeasure. You are counted no differently from those who don't vote because they're too lazy or drunk or apathetic to give a damn. You sure as hell won't be making any sort of statement.
If on the other hand, if you vote for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Paul Ryan, Bernie Sanders or anyone other than these two unworthy and unqualified candidates, you will be making a strong statement, and neither the parties nor the media will be able to mistake your refusal to accept corrupt and utterly selfish candidates, as disinterest or or laziness.
Enough votes for someone other than these two could be a deciding factor in who wins, and this could mean you end up with a president who is marginally less evil than the other, but there's a good chance that it really will make a difference beyond 2016.
The party that wins is likely to be too drunk with victory to worry much about the quality of their winner, but the one that loses will have to. It will have to take a good hard look at who they put out there and why it was they lost. And, I feel certain, by the time 2020 rolls around the winning party will be facing a failed president running for re-election, with primary challenges up the wazoo and then they will have to take a hard look at who they put out there and why they are likely to lose their bid for re-election.
One thing seems very certain to me, and that is if you are truly discouraged and depressed about the state of politics in this country, voting for the lesser of two evils will perpetuate what you can't stand. Both parties will assume that "revolutions" against the Establishment are a pain in the ass, and make things harder to control, but in the end they fade out and the "rebels" get in line.
