Conservatives Don’t Understand the Constitution When Obama’s in Charge

X Facebook Email Flipboard Pinterest Print Reddit

Last updated on June 22nd, 2012 at 10:12 am

The Daily Caller posted a link to Republican pundit Charles Krauthammer’s Monday night appearance on “Special Report” on the FOX News Channel. During the appearance, Krauthammer argued Romney made the correct move in not commenting on or taking a “punt” on President Obama’s immigration policy articulated Friday.

Krauthammer parroted the legally incorrect argument that the President acted beyond his Constitutional authority. In reality, President Obama acted squarely within his authority under Article II of the Constitution.

The Daily Caller’s posting Krauthammer’s television appearance is interesting because it is the same publication that sent a reporter to the White House Rose Garden to interrupt the President during his historic Friday speech. Virtually all serious journalists agree the reporter behaved deplorably.

Now the Republicans, buoyed by support from online sites such as The Daily Caller, are extolling the virtue of Romney taking no stance on a key issue while celebrating the reporter’s taking cheap shots at the President. Republicans do so by misstating the law while exemplifying a Palinesque understanding of the power of the Executive and the separation of powers in general.

It is no surprise the Republicans continue to misstate the law in order to torpedo the President’s principled stance, which is also a brilliant political stance. Basic civics teaches the federal government has three branches of government. Congress makes laws; the Executive branch, headed by the President, enforces them; and the Judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, interprets them.

Article I does give the Congress the power to pass laws relating to immigration, but Article II gives the President the power to enforce the laws. This means the President has the power to enforce the laws within the meaning of the law or to not enforce the law. Reasonable minds can disagree on what the meaning of the law is.

This country needs meaningful immigration reform, and this reform is stymied at every turn by the Republicans who have repeatedly blocked the DREAM ACT.

Likewise, Congress does not adequately fund Homeland Security, which oversees immigration. This slows the process.

The President decided to pave the way to citizenship for undocumented individuals under the age of 30 who came to the U.S. before age 16. These individuals cannot be criminals or a threat to national security. It makes sense to bring individuals in compliance with the law, but the Republicans (when they actually take a stance) do not see it this way.

A friend of mine (a staunch Republican) likened the President’s decision to “prosecutorial discretion” because it is the President’s discretion as to whether or not to enforce the laws and how to enforce the laws. What is different here, however, is the President’s principled stance gives freedom to people where as the Republicans want to take freedom away.

Mitt Romney decided to make no comment on the immigration issue, which is one of the most significant issues of our time. Not very Presidential. Instead Romney let an amateur reporter with a bad tie interrupt the President during a speech in the White House Rose Garden.

It is not surprising Krauthammer would praise Romney for taking no stance as well as incorrectly stating it is a “congressional issue”. Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and now Tucker Carlson, who started the Daily Caller, are Neocons, and Neocons have never been known for their understanding of the law or grasp of the facts. The Neocons misstate the law and show stunning inconsistency in praising the reporter heckler while also praising Romney for retreating into spineless oblivion.

Democrats should stand up proud. President Obama takes stances. He believes in something unlike Mitt Romney who has changed his position more times than I change ties in a year. It is important to be flexible. No question about that, but in the end it is important to stand for something. It is hard to see what Mitt Romney stands for other than “vulture capitalism,” which Bain Capital practiced so skillfully.

Tucker Carlson’s previous show, Crossfire, failed to get the ratings necessary to keep it on the air; perhaps Tucker’s little bow ties had something to do with this. Too bad he did not discovery his lack of dancing talent then because it may have saved the show. Of course it is no worse than Mitt Romney’s singing.

Tucker Carlson is trying to do well with his website even if it means sending cub reporters to heckle the President in the White House Rose Garden. That is okay if the Republicans want to play this way, but come election time they better hope Mitt Romney stands for something. Otherwise they will be as out of step as Tucker Carlson and his Neocon ilk.