For Obama, Inconvenient Law Is Irrelevant Law

The president dismantles immigration law that he finds incompatible with his own larger agenda.

(John Gress/Getty)
(John Gress/Getty)

by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

 

Share This

15 thoughts on “For Obama, Inconvenient Law Is Irrelevant Law”

  1. A little-discussed aspect of Obama’s executive actions is that they introduce us to “rule by dear leader”. If one President can decree any particular change in law without action from Congress, so can the next, and the next. And we descend into effective lawlessness, because there is no longer a written code for the courts to refer to, and thus no basis for action, or inaction, except personal whim.

  2. “…Obama now sees amnesty as his last desperate chance at establishing some sort of legacy.”

    Obama’s legacy will be that of a president who damaged the Constitution through lies, distortions, half-truths
    justifying the overreach of the executive branch. He will not be remembered fondly or as a great man, only as America’s first black president who really buggered things up.

  3. It took three or four months into Obama’s Presidency for me to soberly realize this man simply does not care. The idea that he will come to the center is a pipe dream left over from the Clinton years. Obama has a one track mind and it has nothing what ever to do with Presidential administrative ability. He had no intention of working with the Republicans from the get go. His gate keeper Harry Reid made sure no Republican bills reached the Oval Office. It wouldn’t have mattered anyway because the Annointed One rarely uses it, preferring instead to use backdrops of long hall ways with which he can make his kingly entrances. I guess the Greek columns and stadiums went to his head. The next few weeks will be interesting as ThenRepublicans get ready to take over control of Congress. Let’s see if they can actually come up with a plan to hobble this President and move on to electing a Conservative in 2016. Nothing less can give America at least a chance to repair some of the immense damage Obama and his cronies have done to our Republic.

  4. I appreciate your observations, Victor, but you are preaching to the choir. My question Is “what in God’s name or what is the hell is congress going to do about it”. Obama is bad for the country, BUT so is the congress who stands by and doesn’t either impeach or control this narcissistic lunatic. Example, someone who stands and watches and assault or murder and doesn’t call 911 or intervene, in my mind is just as guilty. As another note” doesn’t Joan Sands stop believing in “HOPE”

  5. Obama has done most everything to poke his finger in America’s eye. However, he has not started a war with the Russians, nor has he given American nuclear secrets to the Iranians. I don’t think that the Russians want an armed confrontation (but who knows) nor does Obama know enough about the military to be able to provoke one. Technical information on nuclear weapons is quite another matter. Obama’s desire for an accommodation with the Iranians is palpable; one can almost taste it. Yet the Iranian negotiators are openly contemptuous of the American position and the American negotiators. The talks give the Iranians what they want – time; some major sweetener is going to be necessary for successful closure. Significant information transfer of nuclear design data would very likely do it. And it would be yet another – probably the most serious – betrayal of America’s essential interests, and therefore delectable to Obama almost beyond words.

    I would suggest that it is time to circulate through the weapons community a threat, or a promise, of drastic action in the event of any collaboration with hostile interests.

    This may seem paranoid but what is left for Obama to do, to surpass the danger and insult of the dissolution of American borders, and his attempt to introduce Ebola into the US?

  6. Obama’s legacy will be that of the worst president in the history of this country, who lied to and mislead the American people with the help of a compliant press.

  7. I was hoping for more logical argument and citation by quote rather than unfounded conclusions and odd accusations. Perhaps in future postings we will no longer hear about Bengazi? One can only hope that a conservative public intellectual will arise who is more rational than the insane media personalities who seem to be driving the current conservative agenda.

  8. Rupert Hammond-Chambers

    VDH.
    I, for one, stand by the intellectual rigor of your commentary.
    For liberals such as those directly above it’s not that you are wrong it’s that you’re stupid (Gruber et al); racist (pick any one of the serial race arsonists from Blow to Holder to Sharpton); you wage war on women (Wendy Davis and the one horse abortion as contraception “feminists”); that you hate the planet (how dare you ask Al Gore and the ‘Gentry Liberal’ community to explain their “consensus science”, a political and economic heist of global proportions). The list of elitist progressive liberal charges masquerading as policy is endless.
    For me you almost touch the moment. Progressive liberals such as Mr. Obama see our constitution, our government, its law and regulations, our churches and mosques, the NFL indeed any institution as sitting below the righteousness of progressive liberal goals. Therefore, any action by a progressive liberal in pursuit of those goals is legitimate. It is why Mr. Obama will continue to act as he does.
    Americans will have to spend more time choking on Obamacare and the remaining excesses of this progressive liberal moment before it is roundly expunged.

  9. Pingback: For Obama, Inconvenient Law Is Irrelevant Law | Life in These Hawaiian Islands

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.