Why not? Because I said so, thats why not. President Obamas executive order on immigration hinges on one very flimsy idea. Broad prosecutorial discretion allows the President to decide that, because he doesnt like a law that Congress has refused to change, hes simply not going to enforce it. Thats a ridiculous argument to make, and a grotesque exaggeration of what prosecutorial discretion was supposed to be, but its the claim theyve chosen to stake. Obviously, this course of action places one man above the law of the land, and represents the first step onto a very slippery slope. What if the next President doesnt feel like pursuing anti-trust law, or banking regulations, or EPA regulations? What if he cant get Congress to change his least favorite law because - as is the case with immigration - the American people dont agree with doing so? According to the precedent Obama is setting, the President has the authority to simply wave his hand and declare that those laws - or entire sections of law - will not be enforced. So, during an interview on This Week, George Stephanopoulos decided to ask: How do you respond to the argument, a future president comes in, wants lower taxes. Doesn’t happen. Congress won’t do it — he says I’m not going to prosecute those who don’t pay capital gains tax.” Guess what. The President doesnt think they have the right to do that. Why? Heres his idiotic non-answer:
Posted on: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:44:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015