Is it okay for Obama to Ignore the Constitution?

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama thinks it's permissible to rewrite federal statutes, like immigration laws and ObamaCare's employer mandate and signup deadlines. Example: Regarding laws governing U.S. immigration policy, when Obama signed the executive amnesty order barring prosecution (and subsequent deportation) of something like 4 million illegal immigrants, he said "I just took an action to change the law." He was never concerned that his action was illegal. He just saw 4 million Democrat voters.

Obama's rationale for unilaterally changing the immigration law: the fact that Congress was hopelessly gridlocked on immigration issues and wouldn't pass laws he favored, the intolerable legal limbo that illegal aliens found themselves in, and that a crisis existed that demanded that he act, that he sign an executive order.  The fact that the aliens were (by current law) illegal never was a consideration for him. It was just crucially important that he immediately act unilaterally. So he did.

About his action, Obama said:

There are actions I have the legal authority to take as president -- the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me -- that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just. [emphasis mine]

What we've done is we've expanded my authorities under executive action and prosecutorial discretion as far as we can legally under the existing statute, the existing law. 

Notice that Obama cited no specific precedents, legal or otherwise. He just said he had the authority. And he tried to make his actions sound legitimate by saying that Republican presidents took similar actions. And he said that "we've expanded my authorities."  

And on February 25, 2015, Obama said, "I'm absolutely confident that what we're doing is the right thing to do."

Regarding changing existing immigration laws, perhaps this exchange had something to do with his recent unilateral immigration action. In January 2013, on the Telemundo network, Obama was asked by Jose Diaz-Balart why he couldn't extend amnesty to illegal immigrants already in America.

Well, I think as - as you know - and I've said this before to you, Jose, but -- I'm not a king.  You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.  And -- you know, 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. [emphasis mine]

Obama was correct "...we can't simply ignore the law." So he changed the law via executive order to better reflect his priorities (which is to get more votes to keep electing Democrats).

What the U.S. Thinks

Obama's questionably legal action is bad enough. But that's not the worst of it, not by a long shot. It seems that a plurality of U.S. Democrats (and, sadly) some Republicans and independents think as Obama does. They think, despite the U.S. Constitution, that Obama should be able to do anything he wants if he thinks "it's the right thing to do."

Regarding bypassing Congress, doing away with checks and balances, fifty-eight percent of Democrats think the president should take action alone if Congress does not approve his proposals. Eighteen percent of Republicans and 39 percent of voters not affiliated with either major party (independents) think similarly. This is the thought process we've come to expect from Democrats, but any percentage above zero from Republicans is surprising. They must have all been RINOs.

Further, a recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 26 percent of "likely US voters" think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country.

Yeah, I know, polls and their results aren't worth the paper they're printed on, especially if they are predictive. But the results of these two indicative attitude polls are so outlandish that they are instructive of how Democrats (and Republicans and independents) think. Any result above zero percent is illustrative of how Democrats view the administration of this country.

What's interesting (and sad) is the fact that 43 percent of Democrats think the president should have the right to ignore the courts -- period. Only 35 percent of Democrats disagree. The fact that the percentage of Democrats who disagree is not 100 is telling. It's also telling that "only" 81 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of non-affiliated voters disagree. These percentages don't bode well for the U.S.

Fifty-two percent of voters think that court challenges of actions approved by the president and Congress help protect the rights of U.S. citizens. Thirty percent view court challenges as hindrances that hamper good policy. Not good for law-and-order. I wonder if those in the 30 percent group would change their thoughts if they saw courts overturning only what they consider bad policy.

Thirty-one percent of voters think it is more important for government to operate efficiently than it is to preserve our system of checks and balances. Again, not good for law-and-order. Fifty nine percent of voters think its more important to maintaining checks and balances. Thirty one percent -- surely the Founders are spinning in their graves. Eleven percent of voters are undecided. What's there to be undecided about?

Interestingly (and telling), 50 percent of Democrats favor efficiency, while 28 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of independents favor efficiency. It's sad that the Republican percentage isn't zero. We expect Democrats to favor efficiency, especially if Obama's policies suffer inefficiency from checks and balances.

What is really sad is that the attitude about the "checks and balances" concept is that it has not changed in the last twenty months. But it’s as expected with the "dumbing down" of education in general, and civics in particular. And the MSM's relentless attacks that say that checks and balances hinder Obama.

Sex, age, and race? About the idea that the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, women are more strongly in favor than men. As are younger voters than those 40 and older. And black voters believe that efficiency is more important than do whites and other minority voters.

Those "Separation of Powers" and "Check and Balances" concepts enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are wonderful things, as is the establishment of the Supreme Court. They were put there by the Founding Fathers for a reason. They were insightful enough to know that someone like Obama would eventually come along.

But, for Democrats (especially those who think they're smarter than the Founders), they're wonderful only when the concepts are used to restrain people who don't view situations as they do. For (more than a few) Democrats, anarchy is fine with them as long as they get their way.

But that's just my opinion.

Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor, and specialized in using statistics to assist/support decision-making.  He is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army 

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama thinks it's permissible to rewrite federal statutes, like immigration laws and ObamaCare's employer mandate and signup deadlines. Example: Regarding laws governing U.S. immigration policy, when Obama signed the executive amnesty order barring prosecution (and subsequent deportation) of something like 4 million illegal immigrants, he said "I just took an action to change the law." He was never concerned that his action was illegal. He just saw 4 million Democrat voters.

Obama's rationale for unilaterally changing the immigration law: the fact that Congress was hopelessly gridlocked on immigration issues and wouldn't pass laws he favored, the intolerable legal limbo that illegal aliens found themselves in, and that a crisis existed that demanded that he act, that he sign an executive order.  The fact that the aliens were (by current law) illegal never was a consideration for him. It was just crucially important that he immediately act unilaterally. So he did.

About his action, Obama said:

There are actions I have the legal authority to take as president -- the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me -- that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just. [emphasis mine]

What we've done is we've expanded my authorities under executive action and prosecutorial discretion as far as we can legally under the existing statute, the existing law. 

Notice that Obama cited no specific precedents, legal or otherwise. He just said he had the authority. And he tried to make his actions sound legitimate by saying that Republican presidents took similar actions. And he said that "we've expanded my authorities."  

And on February 25, 2015, Obama said, "I'm absolutely confident that what we're doing is the right thing to do."

Regarding changing existing immigration laws, perhaps this exchange had something to do with his recent unilateral immigration action. In January 2013, on the Telemundo network, Obama was asked by Jose Diaz-Balart why he couldn't extend amnesty to illegal immigrants already in America.

Well, I think as - as you know - and I've said this before to you, Jose, but -- I'm not a king.  You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.  And -- you know, 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. [emphasis mine]

Obama was correct "...we can't simply ignore the law." So he changed the law via executive order to better reflect his priorities (which is to get more votes to keep electing Democrats).

What the U.S. Thinks

Obama's questionably legal action is bad enough. But that's not the worst of it, not by a long shot. It seems that a plurality of U.S. Democrats (and, sadly) some Republicans and independents think as Obama does. They think, despite the U.S. Constitution, that Obama should be able to do anything he wants if he thinks "it's the right thing to do."

Regarding bypassing Congress, doing away with checks and balances, fifty-eight percent of Democrats think the president should take action alone if Congress does not approve his proposals. Eighteen percent of Republicans and 39 percent of voters not affiliated with either major party (independents) think similarly. This is the thought process we've come to expect from Democrats, but any percentage above zero from Republicans is surprising. They must have all been RINOs.

Further, a recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 26 percent of "likely US voters" think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country.

Yeah, I know, polls and their results aren't worth the paper they're printed on, especially if they are predictive. But the results of these two indicative attitude polls are so outlandish that they are instructive of how Democrats (and Republicans and independents) think. Any result above zero percent is illustrative of how Democrats view the administration of this country.

What's interesting (and sad) is the fact that 43 percent of Democrats think the president should have the right to ignore the courts -- period. Only 35 percent of Democrats disagree. The fact that the percentage of Democrats who disagree is not 100 is telling. It's also telling that "only" 81 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of non-affiliated voters disagree. These percentages don't bode well for the U.S.

Fifty-two percent of voters think that court challenges of actions approved by the president and Congress help protect the rights of U.S. citizens. Thirty percent view court challenges as hindrances that hamper good policy. Not good for law-and-order. I wonder if those in the 30 percent group would change their thoughts if they saw courts overturning only what they consider bad policy.

Thirty-one percent of voters think it is more important for government to operate efficiently than it is to preserve our system of checks and balances. Again, not good for law-and-order. Fifty nine percent of voters think its more important to maintaining checks and balances. Thirty one percent -- surely the Founders are spinning in their graves. Eleven percent of voters are undecided. What's there to be undecided about?

Interestingly (and telling), 50 percent of Democrats favor efficiency, while 28 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of independents favor efficiency. It's sad that the Republican percentage isn't zero. We expect Democrats to favor efficiency, especially if Obama's policies suffer inefficiency from checks and balances.

What is really sad is that the attitude about the "checks and balances" concept is that it has not changed in the last twenty months. But it’s as expected with the "dumbing down" of education in general, and civics in particular. And the MSM's relentless attacks that say that checks and balances hinder Obama.

Sex, age, and race? About the idea that the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, women are more strongly in favor than men. As are younger voters than those 40 and older. And black voters believe that efficiency is more important than do whites and other minority voters.

Those "Separation of Powers" and "Check and Balances" concepts enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are wonderful things, as is the establishment of the Supreme Court. They were put there by the Founding Fathers for a reason. They were insightful enough to know that someone like Obama would eventually come along.

But, for Democrats (especially those who think they're smarter than the Founders), they're wonderful only when the concepts are used to restrain people who don't view situations as they do. For (more than a few) Democrats, anarchy is fine with them as long as they get their way.

But that's just my opinion.

Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor, and specialized in using statistics to assist/support decision-making.  He is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army