The United States has been called a “Nation of Laws”. What this is supposed to mean is that we go by the laws that are PASSED and not just the ones that are convenient. I am sure there are people out there saying “so whats the difference?”.
Here is a clue.. When President Bush II was in office he was supposed to have attached notes to bills that he signed that explaining why he was NOT going to enforce them. Why would that be important? After all he is the CEO of our country,and the National Command Authority for the Military, and so has the top spot in the government. So that means he can do what he wants? NO.
The Congress, when they can get their act together, passes laws, which the President can sign, veto, or let pass with out his signature. If the President vetoes a bill congress can, if they get their act together, override his Veto, and the bill gets to be law.
When President Bush II attached his reasons, his signing document, why he would NOT enforce certain laws he was, in reality, using power that had NOT been given to him by the Constitution, as he was indicating that these law could be ignored.
Of course anything he did is frowned upon, so lets look at more recent events.
Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General is becoming famous for his controversial non-enforcement of U.S. Gun laws, in that under his watch the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, or BATF, has allowed the illegal exportation of firearms to the Drug Cartels of Mexico. Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is stonewalling the Congressional Investigation into the Fast and Furious scam that allowed the sale of these weapons to the Mexican cartels and there have even been statements by licensed dealers who stated they were told, by ATF agents, to let the transactions go through even though they KNEW they were illegal. Can we say “conspiracy to violate U.S. Law”, or is it legal if done by the Attorney General? The assistant United States Attorney has justified this act by saying that previous administrations, Bush II, have done the same thing. Does this mean that, in a legal sense, that if more then one administration violates the law that it is suddenly LEGAL? Does this mean that if two administrations in a row ignore, for example, the laws governing free speech, or any other constitutional right, that it becomes legal?
Lets look at something a little more recent. The Obama administration could not get the DREAM ACT passed, to they decide to cherry pick which parts of the immigration laws they will enforce?
So the Congress can pass whatever laws it wants, the Supreme Court can decide which of them is constitutional, and the Executive branch can decide which of the laws it wants to enforce? That is what some of our Presidents would have you believe….
The truth of the matter is that.the Congress sets the rules that the President is to follow. Even Obama, as recently as 28 March 2011, said he did NOT have the authority to ignore immigration laws and refuse to deport illegal aliens. Yet, now he does just that. His administration is even going further. They are not only taking measures to keep the states from enforcement those laws, but they are trying to bar the states from making sure the illegal aliens don’t vote.
A City Police officer can enforce City and State law, a Country Officer can enforce Country and State law, and a State Officer can enforce State and some Federal Laws. If the state of Florida, for example, were to pass a law that only Law Enforcement Officers certified in the State of Florida, which it has, can enforce the laws and arrest people that would NOT mean that the FBI, for example, would then be powerless. This is because their authority comes from Federal law with would supercede State law. State law is separate from Federal law, which is why someone could be convicted in both State and Federal court for the same crime, being they both have the crime on the books, and it would NOT be double jeopardy for the simple reason that while it might be one act it is, on the books, two separate crimes.
This might give you an understanding. In 1963, when President Kennedy was shot by Lee Oswald, it was against Federal law to threaten, assault, or attack, the President of the United States but, killing him was not covered under Federal law. That was why Oswald was in the custody of the local Texas cops and not the FBI, as he could not be charged under Federal law…… If there had been a Federal law, then there would be nothing to say that they could not have charged him at both the State and Federal levels.
There is still nothing to prevent the Feds from doing their jobs just because the States are willing to take up the slack. The point is that the Obama groups just wants to ignore the illegal aliens, and thus get more voters.
His agenda is to throw this country under the bus. It is that simple.