Obama: The Most Dangerous Precedent

Obama: The Most Dangerous Precedent

Everyone knows–whether they admit it or not–that President Barack Obama’s “executive amnesty” is wrong. But most Americans aren’t sure how to stop him–even though if this last election was about anything, it was about stopping Obama from granting an executive amnesty.

Obama has chosen to ignore the voice of the people.

Obama is no longer acting as President, it is as if he believes he is an emperor or a dictator or the Messiah, when in fact his actions are those of a petulant child, hell-bent on getting his own way.

We can survive this President, but this Precedent will have implications far more precarious and arbitrary, which does not bode well for a nation ruled by law.

By nullifying entire portions of federal law regarding immigration and naturalization, which is under the legal purview of congress, Cbama will be clearly overstepping his constitutional authority. He swore an oath to uphold and carry out the laws of the land, not to modify, nullify or exempt select groups from them.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

What are the implications of Obama’s action for California?

In California, where millions of illegal aliens have chosen to make their home, anyone with an Obama-approved work permit will be granted a California Drivers license. Not an AB60 License, but one that looks like that of every legal citizen. That document will allow the holder of it to board an airplane, even though we have no idea the identify of the issuant. Tragically, last month Californians learned that evil can lurk in the hearts of those who appear to be “nice” illegals as two decent, honorable men in uniform in Sacramento were cut down in the prime of their lives by a vicious killer disguised as “someone just looking for a better life.”

The idea that the man occupying the White House could take an action that would so dramatically impact our state, while overriding the input and consent of the 55 individuals who represent Californians in the House and the Senate, is deeply offensive. By granting a unilateral amnesty, Obama is agreeing to protect those who have entered our country illegally from the legal consequences of that decision. The consequences will be borne by legal citizens and taxpayers.

Moreover, with Motor Voter now the law of the land, Obama’s action will have far-reaching implications. By virtue of Obama’s action, millions of unknown persons will eligible to receive a California Drivers license, which is a gateway ID, enabling you to vote and qualify for taxpayer-paid welfare benefits. In California, if you fail to check the box affirming you are a U.S. Citizen, your name is placed on the voter rolls anyway (according to California’s outgoing Secretary of State, Debra Bowen). Most Californians oppose granting these benefits to illegals, but Obama does not care.  It’s going to be his way or no way.

If you look at the recent vote in Oregon opposing Drivers Cards for illegals, it should be a cause for concern among Democrats. In one of the bluest states in the Union&–where voters re-elected a very liberal Governor and Senator–Oregonians voted two-to-one to repeal the state law granting Drivers Cards. The vote was 66% in favor of repeal and only 34% opposed. Democrats are forced defend to their core constituencies an action that could limit wage growth and educational opportunities for poor and middle-class Americans.

The simplest way to describe what Obama is doing is this: He is nullifying a section of federal law for a select group whom he believes support his ideology and his political party. It would be analogous to a Republican president nullifying a section of federal law pertaining to firearms instead of immigration. While I might support repealing many gun laws, I would not support an action that puts the very separation of powers and the Constitution at risk. That is why repealing laws is done through the Congress, by the people’s representatives. It means that the people have given their consent.

While liberals would most certainly oppose an unconstitutional action to ease gun restrictions, I hope they will stand against this equally egregious breach. We need to stand together as Americans in defense of the rule of law and the Constitution, which undergird our Republic, and protect our natural, unalienable rights.

The greatest threat to the future of this Constitutional Republic is the precedent set by the very man, who occupies the Oval Office and swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend it.”