Most of my liberal pals are positively giddy about President Obama’s announcement Thursday night concerning his plan to take executive action on immigration. They are thrilled by the sincerity and compelling delivery of his speech to the nation in which he outlined his plans. Plans that they are convinced were long overdue. Almost universally, they say that Mr. Obama had to do this because, after all, congress failed to act.

Obama-Gun-Control

It’s not my intention to speak to the substance of the immigration issue in this piece. I have my opinions about it, to be sure, but my desire here is to simply discuss the executive action itself, and express my concerns relative to that.

To start with, I think a fundamental feature of our government has been largely forgotten. Our Founding Fathers set up a government with a bicameral congress and an executive, virtually insuring that legislation would not easily be passed. The checks and balances found in bicameralism alone went a long way to insuring this. But the separation of powers that established an executive with veto power (and a required two-thirds vote to over-ride) made it particularly difficult. This was done by design. They had just gone through a war and revolution to rid themselves of what they considered to be a tyrannical government. They wanted to be certain they didn’t set up a new government that would simply end up like the one they had just thrown off. Thus when we hear about our government being gridlocked, or at a stalemate, or that they never get anything done, it is helpful that we remember that this is what the Founders preferred. They wanted to be sure that laws were not made willy-nilly, without careful consideration and debate, and most importantly, without the consensus necessitated by the procedure they set up.

constitutionArticle 1, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says this: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The executive cannot make law. To the extent that President Obama’s actions are the “making” of law, his actions will be unconstitutional.

I know there are some who couldn’t care less about the point I’ve just made. Their feeling is that the Constitution is a flawed document written by flawed men, and it’s foolish to insist upon adherence to it. There will be others that dispute the notion that Mr. Obama’s actions are “making” law, and thus are entirely within his power. And, given the evolutionary nature of constitutional interpretation these days, I’m certain many a judge will be reluctant to call this action by the President unconstitutional.

Not everyone, however, even on the political left, will be reluctant to suggest that the President has gone too far.

Last February, George Washington Law Professor and self-described liberal Jonathan Turley began to express his concern about the President’s intentions after hearing Mr. Obama promising to “go it alone” during his State of the Union speech. Turley said this: “I believe we are now at a constitutional tipping point in our system. It’s a dangerous point for our system to be in…”What we’re seeing is a fundamental change in our system. What we’ve been seeing for the last two presidencies is a very significant shift of power, largely from the legislative branch to the executive branch, and that’s creating a dominant presidency. We don’t have a system designed for that…the separation of powers may seem like some arcane principle, but it’s not there to protect politicians, it’s there to protect individual rights.”

Last week, being interviewed on FOX News, Turley said this:

“It’s a very sad moment but it’s becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election to defy the will of Congress yet again. I can understand the frustration, these are two political parties that cannot get along but as you said, we have a Democratic process and a Congress that’s coming in with the full voice of the American people behind them, that’s what an election is, you may disagree with the outcome, but you have to respect the outcome…What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance and that doesn’t protect the branches. It’s not there to protect the executive branch or the legislative branch, it’s there to protect liberty. It’s there to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty…”I always tell my friends on the Democratic side, we will rue the day when we helped create this uber presidency…What the Democrats are creating is something very, very dangerous. They’re creating a president who can go at it alone and to go at it alone is something that is a very danger that the framers sought to avoid in our constitution.”

I would simply ask my Left-leaning friends to pretend that George W. Bush was still in the White House. Pretend that Dick Cheney was still Vice President. Take a deep breath and ponder the following question: Would you still have no problem with a president taking such action? Do you really want to grant the Executive Branch of our government this level of power when it is so clearly designated in the Constitution to be congressional alone? Does it not set a truly horrendous precedent regardless of who does it or what good you think it might do?

4 comments
  1. I felt the above article was very well written. I have two questions for the author:

    1. What do you believe was the President’s number one motive for taking this executive action on immigration?

    2. If you were to take a deep breath and pretend that George W. Bush was still in the White House and that Dick Cheney was still Vice President, would you still have a problem with the president taking such action? My guess and hope is that you very much would, but thought I’d pose the question anyway.

    In response to your question on the flip-side, my answer is NO, I would not have a problem with a Republican president taking this action. I will say, though, that I am not as passionate about what is laid out in the constitution (and applying it to the letter today) as some are, but I respect those who are.

    Thank you.

    1. I adding another comment and apologize for the piecemealing.

      After posting my two questions earlier, I thought perhaps that this forum might be geared more to readers commenting on articles rather than posing questions. Because of that, I thought it might be appropriate for me to at least provide some level of comment regarding this issue.

      Generally speaking, I am a novice to most political issues. The main reason for my interest in some of the issues that are being discussed today, is my exposure to social media and what seems to be a bashing of our President by some, regardless of what he does. I have been trying to follow this recent immigration issue as best as I can to understand more why the President did what he did, and if it was the right thing to do. Based on what the President said in his speech, he was acting where congress had failed and pointed out that this ‘disagreement’ should not be a deal breaker on every issue. If the President acted on his own for good reason, which I believe he did, then I applaud his decision.

      Thank you.

    2. Hi Olivia:

      Thanks for your comments. I wanted to answer your two questions as best I can. Please allow me to answer your second question first.

      Yes, it doesn’t matter to me who does it whether Republican or Democrat, I would still think this was bad. I was hopeful I had made that plain in my piece. Having said that, I do believe that not all executive actions are the same, and it isn’t always helpful to count the number of executive orders that a particular president has made and then compare them to how many another president made. I’m more interested in the breadth, scope, and impact of the action, and, of course, the legal argument for its justification.

      As to the first question, I can’t know with certainty what motivates him chiefly. There are a lot of factors to take into consideration. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he really believes that doing what he has proposed is in the best interests of the country as well as the people who are here illegally. That probably is what he believes. It’s hard for me to grant him the judgment of charity, however, because he and his administration so frequently resort to telling falsehoods to the American people.

      Thanks again, Olivia!

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Kavanaugh Confirmed

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Senate by a 50 to 48 vote on Saturday afternoon.

A Renewed Call for a Federal Marriage Amendment

The solution to the marriage issue is to adopt a federal marriage amendment which protects traditional marriage.

Health Care Reform Approval/Disapproval Gap Widening Again

After a small bounce right after it was passed, the gap widens…

Journalists Pardoned By North Korea

The journalists who were sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp…