If the President Does It, That Means It’s Not Unconstitutional

by Mark Krikorian

Chew on this during today’s 226th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution:

Immigration advocates are intensifying pressure on the Obama administration to act unilaterally to stop deportations or grant legal status to some of the 11 million people now living in the U.S. illegally.

Activists are stepping up acts of civil disobedience like one last month in Phoenix, where they blocked a bus full of immigrant detainees. And labor leaders plan to press the issue with a top White House official in an upcoming meeting.

Many advocates continue to hold out hope for a legislative solution even as some shift their focus to the White House.

If Congress doesn’t move, the president has a duty to act,” said Ana Avendano, director of immigration and community action at the AFL-CIO. “Just because the Republicans have buried their heads in the sand doesn’t mean that immigrant communities aren’t feeling the sting of constant deportations.”

Of course, it’s perfectly rational for the open-borders crowd to demand that Obama act unilaterally. Notwithstanding that pesky fist line of Article I — “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” — the president has repeatedly legislated, ruling by decree. And our supine Congress has let him get away with it. In fact, Marco Rubio has told his fellow Republicans they need to pass the amnesty to prevent the president from enacting one on his own if the bill fails. This is the logic of appeasement, and so it makes sense for the appeasee to keep up the pressure and demand all of Czechoslovakia.