What if a Republican president decided not to enforce Roe v Wade, or the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
What if Pres Romney, or Bush, had said that he would not enforce the law and leave it to the states.
What would Dems be saying? They'd be screaming saying that the president can not go around the law to please a constituency.
What is the difference between that example and what Pres BO did on Friday?
Are some Dems only interested in the reelection of Pres BO?
What about the US Constitution?
I agree with John Hinderaker:
"Do Democrats mind seeing the United States turned into a banana
republic? Not particularly. Evidently, their only concern is their guy’s
re-election. Still, at least a few of them must have pondered what the
Obama Doctrine will mean under a Republican administration."
I agree with the editors of National Review:
Do Dems really want a future GOP president to use the same arbitrary powers that Pres BO has just used to score "political" points with some Hispanics?
"The president’s executive order violates the constitutional separation
of powers that defines the political architecture of our republic. If
Congress allows this illegitimate executive order to stand, it will have
in effect delegated its power to make law to the president."
Do Dems really want a future GOP president to use the same arbitrary powers that Pres BO has just used to score "political" points with some Hispanics?
Click here for our Sunday night chat with Bill Katz of Urgent Agenda:
Listen to internet radio with Silvio Canto Jr on Blog Talk Radio
Tags: This is not about the young "dreamers"......this is about a president who went around Congress
To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
