Why Executive Amnesty is Morally Wrong
For the time being, a federal judge has put the kibosh on President *Batteries Not Included’s “executive amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens. But of course, once “progressives” have an evil work in hand, they never drop it. And the headlines are full of Republican surrender monkeys who seem to think the last election didn’t count.
Let us disregard, for the sake of argument, the probably irreparable harm that would be done by trying to digest, all at once, millions of unskilled poor people who come here from a foreign country and can’t speak English. Indeed, let’s go farther–even farther than Fat-head Jeb Bush, who thinks erasing our borders will somehow “lift our spirits.” Let’s say this wholesale amnesty will be altogether a blessing: guaranteed to get our economy moving again, re-invigorate a rotting culture, refresh our social institutions, and result in each and every one of us getting a highly-paid no-show job with a big fat pension that kicks in when we turn 35.
Executive amnesty would still be wrong.
Why? Because, as the president himself has remarked many times, during lucid intervals, the Constitution simply doesn’t give a president that kind of power. He cannot exercise such power without way overstepping his bounds. He can’t do it without violating the law and threatening the continued existence of our republican form of government.
Should the chief executive of a modern, civilized country also be its chief law-breaker?
And if Congress is willing to let a president function as a king, at the expense of its own Constitutional prerogatives and sphere of authority–well, then, what does that make them?
At the moment, it seems that all that stands between America and monarchy is a single federal judge.
That, and our prayers.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com