There are lots of laws that we, as a nation do not fully prosecute. And let's not kid ourselves, mostly it is simply a matter of degrees. Zero enforcement is just slightly less than $1B per year.

For example, the Feds do not "fully" enforce drug laws. They let California slide on grass. That is in conflict with federal law. It is really a matter of priorities. If you don't like Obama's priorities, fine. I don't always agree with him either.

This Imperial presidency thing is just a big strawman though. They all are.

Prove yourself worthy of your leaders and the central planning committee in Washington by fulfilling production quotas on schedule and better quality! Toiling selflessly on the president's shovel ready projects is the patriotic duty of every man, woman and transgendered person! Report all capitalistic activities to the White House!

So, if the next President chooses not to enforce the tax laws, would that be o.k.? For example, the tax on capital gains are expected to increase. The next President decides not to enforce that law which gives the investor class a tax break. Are you in favor ?

Precedent, once established, should be respected whether you are R or D. My opinion: all presidents should enforce the law no matter his personal opinion of that law. That is his oath of office.

The discretion to enforce or not enforce certain laws usually rests with prosecutors at the Justice Department or sometimes the A.G himself. But for the President himself to make that decision, and so publicly, is unusual. So why did he do it ? Do you think it might have something to do with the 2012 election ?

Imminently sensible replies. I was expecting more hysteria, like the article suggests.

When Obama proposed the Dream Act, which died in Congress, Obama announced that he would implement it anyway. Morons who know nothing about the law screamed "IMPEACH!" claiming Obama was breaking the law.

No, folks. Obama, like any president, can do that. The decision to prosecute illegals rests with the A.G., consequently with the President. So, if the Dream Act fails in Congress, the President can decide, "Oh, well. I'll just make the A.G. prosecute only those illegals who fall outside the Dream Act.

Yes, he can do that.

This Imperial presidency thing is just a big strawman though.

This administration has bypassed Congress on two occasions: declaring war on Libya, and now essentially deeming that the DREAM Act was passed.

And you think this is a good idea?

Sorry, I meant to say eminently.

Sigh. I R A Darth, the war powers act says Obama can commit our troops for 90 days, without congress.

And since the decision to prosecute illegals rests with the A.G., Obama can enforce it any damn way he pleased. And less than two years of the Obama presidency has deported more illegals than eight years of Bush.

I'm tired of know-nothings who get on their soap box and scream buzz words like "unconstitutional" and "impeachment."

There is nothing wrong with what Obama did in either case. You may not like it, but they were born legal exercises of executive authority.

I recall a Supreme Court case, circa 1970, that may have bearing on this. Congress passed a law that mandated school busing for certain districts, and allocated funds for it. President Nixon refused to enforce the law, and impounded the money. The Surpreme Court ruled against the Administration, and issued an injunction compelling the executive branch to implement the law.

A further problem with what Obama has done is that his decree goes beyond just saying that he won't enforce the law for certain groups. They are implementing a program where certain illegals can apply for and get work permits. Where did Congress authorize those permits, or appropriate funding for administering them?

There is a major problem when laws have so many lawbreakers that the vast majority cannot be prosecuted. Arbitrary arrests lead to a disaster of corruption and favortism.

It is much better to have a clear rule preventing abuse of the law regardless of whether the rule is the right decision or not.

I actually agree with the author on most of his piece. Executive power has been growing more, and more. Although it's blatantly wrong to state that it just started under Obama. The grown in executive power has been happening for years.

Bush 43: cut taxes drastically and spend mightily.
Obama 44: spend much less mightily into the teeth of a Wall Street-induced recession.

Sad to write, criticizing Obama for advancing the imperial presidency is similar to criticizing Obama for increasing the national debt: Obama's critics have only woken from their deep, deep slumber.

Obama's critics ignored these policies under Bush 43. Those over age 30 have *zero* history of opposing the things they claim to despise about Obama. Which is why moderate voters think "ho, hum, politics and hypocrisy, as usual." It's embarrassing when libertarians, reflexively, fall for GOP spin points.

"there's the announcement that they will no longer deport illegal aliens over 30"

Actually, it's aliens _up_to_ age 30, if they were brought in before they had reached age 16.

See my post here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2012/06/implementing-laws-and-regulations-as.html

Nice try Andre but I hated Bush, did NOT vote for him, and hate Obama too. I am not a libertarian. I used to vote dem, lately vote repub now that I have kids and bills. I have a decent lib streak. I almost always vote for the least bad candidate.

Why do I worry that there will be a new cheaper option in the document mills that will provide 24 year old Jaun Habanero, who has been here a year, with documents from Jose Jalapeno who was here since he was five?

Politics, that's all this is. It does no service for illegal aliens who are trying to immigrate here, it's worded to allow a far broader and undefined group than "children who were brought here through no fault of their own," it does not move reasonable amnesty efforts forward, in fact it moves them back. It's utterly unconstitutional and cynical. Fortunately, this latest lame political maneuver appears to be backfiring. The American people are starting to see who Obama really is: the worse of Nixon and Carter combined.