"…that doesn’t grant the president license to tear up the Constitution. As Mr. Obama himself said last fall: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.” To act on his own, the president said, would violate those laws.
Mr. Obama now seems to be jettisoning that stance in the name of rallying his political base. He is considering extending temporary protection from deportation to millions of illegal immigrants, including the parents of U.S.-born children and others who have lived in the United States for years. Conceivably, this would give Democrats a political boost in 2016. Just as conceivably, it would trigger a constitutional showdown with congressional Republicans, who could make a cogent argument that Mr. Obama had overstepped his authority.
The president should think twice. Some of the same Democrats and pro-immigrant advocates urging him to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation would be outraged if a Republican president took a similarly selective approach to enforcing the laws — say, those that guarantee voting rights or prohibit employment discrimination. Mr. Obama’s instincts — “we’re also a nation of laws” — were and remain correct."
Frustration over stalled immigration action doesn
Like they say ... if enough people tell you you're drunk ... lie down.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.
Speaking of the constitution and a court ruling against Him, Bush had this to say.
"I strongly disagree with that document. Strongly disagree," President Bush said. The president called the Constitution, "out of touch with 21st century terror."
"Now look, here's the Constitution, it was written 200 years ago. They didn't have this kind of a threat. They didn't have to be adaptive. They made all these restricting rules, and there's no way to change it. It is out of place in this century, in this fight. Al-queda doesn't care about it, so we can't either."
As if to underscore Bush's point, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga) added, "If the appeal continues and this decision's upheld, then we'll have to set policy that does comply with the Constitution. This takes away a vital tool in our war on terror. If we cannot sink to the level of Stalin and Hussein, how can we fight back?"
The White House's argument in support of the program is that Mr Bush's role as commander-in-chief of US forces gave him, "the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the first and fourth amendments of the constitution", according to White House Spokesman Tony Snow.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
See this is what happens when someone like you just posts partisan crap and doesn't read the thread. You're dismissed son.
Should we really care who the worst President is or was? There's no trophy for that.
I haven't liked a single one of them. They are just necessary evil cogs in the workings of a corrupt government.