There are really only two ways to look at President Obama’s immigration announcement Friday: 1) as a principled policy change by a confident and secure leader looking to bring some resolution to a controversial issue; or 2) as the panicked act of a weak incumbent desperately trying to distract from his failed economic record.
Considering his position in the latest tracking polls (Gallup has him down one to Mitt Romney head-to-head) and his widely panned economic speech in Cleveland Thursday, it is safe to rule out the first explanation. However, judging from this Sunday’s talk shows, Obama did succeed in distracting the press … for now.
But as former Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo notes, Obama’s decision has set a precedent that could last while beyond his own term in office:
Imagine the precedent this claim would create. President Romney could lower tax rates simply by saying he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax. He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it.
So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.
Team Romney has done a good job sticking to their message on the economy, but when they are asked about Obama’s immigration policy, the damage it did to the Constitution should be their first response.
Read more at Washington Examiner
