72 votes

Judge Nap: Can Obama rewrite federal law?

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Washington Times

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?

Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the U.S. military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyberwarfare - computers - to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the United States as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

Continue reading at the Washington Times

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

End The Fed Tract

Does anyone know of any tract showing how the Federal Reserve Bank works?

I know chick publications makes tracks for religion.

Or any good hand out flyers about how the Federal Reserve Bank works.

I would like to hand something out to people.


Hand out cards/literature or tracks about the Federal Reserve Bank,
To people at the mall,supermarket,church and school or anywhere else
in public.
DO IT!It does work. Remember to put websites and QR codes on your

Paradox within the article itself.

I really like the Judge, but something strikes me about this article. In it he makes the case that Presidents can choose to not enforce laws which are demonstrably against our natural rights which are God given (or derive from reason for the athiests out there). Some of these natural rights are encoded within our constitution and so it is similar to say that The President can choose not to enforce laws which run contrary to the Constitution. He cites Jeffersons decision not to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Later he makes the case that the features of the law that Obama has chosen to not enforce are actually against Natural Law, and makes the case that Congress should have enacted these changes long ago.

Long story short - The Judge has actually provided the Natural Law foundation supporting Obama's actions based on the same ideas that Libertarians have argued for decades. That is - A law which supercedes Natural Law or our Constitution is no law and should not be enforced.

Libertarians suggest all sorts of ways to do this - We hear Tom Woods talk about Jury Nullification, we hear Sheriff Mack talk about not enforcing seatbelt laws, and we hear Judge Nap talk about presidents not enforcing unconstitutional laws.

How do you respond?

Nice Catch

Wouldve given you +2 if I had extra special powers.

I agree. Not that I agree

I agree.

Not that I agree with any of Obama's rationalizaitons and understanding because he just makes it up as he goes along.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Can't the CEO of a Corporation Change the Rules within that

Corporation, without the consent of others, especially if they don't contest it?

This is not a president we're dealing with Judge, he's the Chief Executive Officer of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

Two Constitutions:

The constitution "FOR" and The constitution "OF".

Which one is Obama in charge of and which one is the people in charge of?

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmm :)

A CEO must report to the

A CEO must report to the board of directors and the CEO can be fired by the board... so the comparison is not that good.

The president reports to

The president reports to congress and can be impeached by congress.

Not at all comparable to the

Not at all comparable to the private sector. A CEO can be fired much more easily. Impeachment is a rarity.

Here we go again

indeed. Is there nothing new? This is the substance.

DMX said it a long time ago as did Clinton's mentor, Carol Quigley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A949JshqvbI or if you don't believe in this sort of thing:

Quigley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxVlBVXwU5k

Find me on Facebook, Diaspora, Tumblr, and Twitter

section 3 of article 2 states

section 3 of article 2 states that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Therefore the president is obliged to enforce all the laws. If he can choose which ones not to enforce, that would in effect give him the power to veto all the laws signed by previous presidents.

the real political scale

I've found this scale useful

no gov...X................................total gov

This scale is useful to show people still stuck in left/right thinking.

On this scale, X is where I think most of here would agree we want to be and where
following the constitution keeps the country. Anything else and the country starts drifting toward total gov.

"Only Congress can lay down

"Only Congress can lay down specifics for immigration law, such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. "

WRONG, judge Napalitano!!!!

Only STATES can do that! Congress has ZERO delegated authority over immigration.

And for good reason. It wasn't like the Framers didn't think about it, they did. And quickly rejected the idea.

So, are YOU going to say that YOU view the Constitution as only a guideline? Or are you going to show me the word "immigration" in Article 1, SEction 8?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

"to establish a uniform rule

"to establish a uniform rule of naturaliztion" from article 1 section 8. what is your interpretation of these words?

Naturalization is NOT

Naturalization is NOT immigration. It's why it's called the INS, not the NS. Of couse, only NS is legal and delegated.

Naturalization is the process of a resident becoming a citizen.

It would be perfectly legal to move to the US and live your life as a non-citizen. In theory. You wouldn't be able to hold office or vote and would miss out on other small benefits. Just as Americans go live in France or other countries as residents.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

It is not called the INS!!!!

It is not called the INS!!!! It is called the USCIS which stands for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. It has not been called the INS for many years. Before you claim to know what you are talking about you should know what you are talking about. Your point kind of falls apart when the facts are introduced. This site is very good at calling out BS when they see it.


And let me put it this

And let me put it this way.

If the KKK called themselves the Love Group, would you stop calling them the KKK?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Yes, yes, I know, they

Yes, yes, I know, they changed the name because the INS had such a terrible reputation as racists.

As if my point is somehow changed. Let's start with the more politically correct USCIS then.

Okay, so why do they [now] call it the US Citizenship AND Immigration Services if citizenship/naturalization is the exact same thing as immigration. Why not the US Citizenship Services?

Immigration and naturalization are two separate things.

So are you defending when the government breaks the Constitution?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

But, wait, federal

But, wait, federal immigration laws are unconstitutional anyway!

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

I will never forget an interview I once saw Jimmy Carter do.

It was more than 30 years ago but it made a very strong impression on me.

It was just before the election that he eventually lost to Reagan and he was asked what he would do if, when the tally came in, he lost.

Jimmy Carter paused for a moment, gave a little "Why? What do you expect" look at the interviewer, and said something like "I will turn power over to Mr Reagan."

Until that moment, being American, I was barely aware that there was another option. But of course THERE IS! Fortunately as Americans we have had move that 200 years of orderly transfer of power, but most countries have never enjoyed that luxury. Leaders CAN and DO decide "for the good of the country" (of course) to usurp the Constitution and the the Law and stay in power a little longer - maybe for life. It happens all the time in other countries and though it hasn't happened here yet - don't think it CAN'T happen.

We have NEVER had a President who ignores the Constitution as badly as Obama does. Obama didn't even ASK the Congress about attacking Libya. Obama threw out due process for American citizens. Not so long ago, these ideas would have been cosnidered as absurd a President deciding to ignore the term in office provisions of the Constitution, but they have happened.

DON'T be fooled into believing that it is impossible that he trump up some reason to ignore scheduled elections and term provisions as well.

Great post! Seriously, great

Great post! Seriously, great post, I actually think Dubya was considering not giving up power after his second term had expired. Somebody is bound to do that soon. It may be Obama, it may be the next authoritarian douche who occupies the White House but eventually we will have a president who claims emergancy power to keep in office.

oath of office

There is no difference between romney and obama. Neither will follow the constitution and live up to their oath. Neither will get my vote. For the rest of my life, I will only be voting and supporting individuals who have shown through their life and career that they fully intend to obey this oath. In this race, that man is obviously Ron Paul. He would reduce the executive power back to how it is laid out in the constitution. This is the easiet choice I have made in my lifetime. Romney and obama are not worthy of public office, not to mention the presidency.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-Benjamin Franklin

supreme Law of the Land or "a guideline"?

Is it enforceable in court? YES
Does it legally supersede the executive, judicial decisions and laws made by federal and state governments if invoked in a court? YES
The Constitution itself (art. VI) reads:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Which a contrario to me looks to mean something like ""The Laws of the United States not made in Pursuance of the Constitution are not the supreme Law of the Land and nobody is bound by them in any State, especially not the Judges""

Carl Levin walks into a bar.

Carl Levin walks into a bar. He spies a cutie down at the end, so he saunters over and says "Have sex with me or I'll detain you at Guantanamo and shove a hot poker up your anus"


Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."



"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

This is to all the clowns who think we should VOTE for Obama

because he only has a potential four years left (ASSUMING he doesn't rewrite THAT part of the Constituion as well and give himself MORE).

We don't know how bad a Romney Presidency would be, but Obama is breaking records. Obama is unprecedented in corruption and fascism.

Ron Paul might not get the nomination. Gary Johnson, may not be electable. But to throw a vote Obama's way is unthinkable.

This is largely my problem with that idea

No matter how exactly-the-same Mitt Romney could possibly be when compared to Obama, I don't see that as any justification for allowing Obama to win a second term. I'd rather have a revolving door of assholes wherein each one finds out just how repulsed we are when it comes time to cast our votes again than to reward one asshole with another four years. To do so would make it seem like we approve of the crap they've pulled. For some particular assholes, it's exactly what they want.

They lay the groundwork for whatever unconstitutional shenanigans they plan on pulling in their first four without showing us exactly whats in the box, because to do so would spell certain doom for their second act campaign. No, they unveil the contents only after they've firmly planted their asses in the Oval Office for their second and last term, where they are now untouchable to the voices of the people.

I don't want to know what Obama's got in the box, I don't want to know what he's more capable of doing when he has the flexibility after reelection that he promised Putin's pal. I've seen the ludicrous things he's done with the lights on, I've seen how he uses the Constitution as toilet paper as it is.

When the only choices are "this asshole" and "that asshole", point me toward whichever one hasn't already been in the office, hasn't already soiled the Constitution. And when that asshole's done the exact same thing himself, I'll vote for the next asshole for the exact same reason: no one should ever be rewarded with a second term for being a shitty President.

You think in two dimensions only.

Obama=Bad. Romney=Bad. Therefore Obama=Romney.

If "Bad" is a constant, that forumula makes sense. But if "Bad" is a variable with a range, it certainly doesn't.

Though we know Obama is EXTREMELY far up the range of "Bad", we don't know how "Bad" Romney will be.

I have serious doubts that we can survive as a country with four more years of Obama "Bad". I am sightly more confident that Romany "Bad" would not be as extreme.

In ANY even I can not give my endorsement through my vote to EITHER - and will instead give it to a third party candidate who at least relecets my politics.

Obama = lame duck

Four more years of Obama will be bad, but limited in his ability to get anything shoved through the system.

The whole point of the post

was that if Romney happens to be just as horrible as Obama, I'd still rather him win. I don't subscribe to the idea that he is myself, but I know there are a number of users here who do and would argue the point. The length at which I suggested that the two are practically one and the same was just an attempt to preempt that argument.