President Obama's executive order on immigration hinges on one very flimsy idea. Broad "prosecutorial discretion" allows the President to decide that, because he doesn't like a law that Congress has refused to change, he's simply not going to enforce it. That's a ridiculous argument to make, and a grotesque exaggeration of what prosecutorial discretion was supposed to be, but it's the claim they've chosen to stake.
Obviously, this course of action places one man above the law of the land, and represents the first step onto a very slippery slope.
What if the next President doesn't feel like pursuing anti-trust law, or banking regulations, or EPA regulations? What if he can't get Congress to change his least favorite law because - as is the case with immigration - the American people don't agree with doing so? According to the precedent Obama is setting, the President has the authority to simply wave his hand and declare that those laws - or entire sections of law - will not be enforced.
So, during an interview on This Week, George Stephanopoulos decided to ask:
"How do you respond to the argument, a future president comes in, wants lower taxes. Doesn’t happen. Congress won’t do it — he says I’m not going to prosecute those who don’t pay capital gains tax.”
Guess what. The President doesn't think they have the right to do that. Why? Here's his idiotic non-answer:
As you can see, a future Republican President wouldn't have the right to do with taxes what Obama just did with immigration because....
Ummm.....
Well....
Because Barack Obama said so.
