The Imperial Presidency

After President Obama granted limited amnesty to illegal immigrants who had entered the United States before the age of sixteen, a few barbs about how this indicated the rise of an “Imperial Presidency” were directed his way.

What struck me, however, was just how few and muted these were. Not many commentators were prepared to give the accusation full voice. This was in marked contrast with how fervently George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon endured similar charges.

An Imperial President presumably rules like a king. He does what he wants irrespective of congressional actions. When thwarted by legislators who prove resistant to such policies as the Dream Act, he implements them anyway. He does not allow our creaky democratic machinery to get in the way of what he considers best.

This is the very definition of what Obama did with respect to immigration. Instead of seeking relief for young illegals through legislation, he issued a decree directing the agencies under his command to enforce the rules—not as written—but as he wished they had been.

Of course, Barack warned us that he might do something of the sort about a year ago. He then told the nation that he would not allow obstructionist politicians to interfere with this plans. He would not wait for others to do what was right, but would do so on his own hook. Necessity could brook no delay.

So why isn’t the public outraged? Why aren’t people rushing to the barricades to defend the Constitution? Have ordinary citizens been anesthetized to presidential overreaching because there has been so much of it? What’s one more executive edict when so many have poured forth from environmental and labor agencies?

Maybe, however, the lack of indignation reflects the ho-hum attitude of Democrats and the mainstream media. Wasn’t it true that Nixon’s extra-legal initiatives become a scandal only after the media and moderate Republicans became concerned that he was breaking the law?

Nowadays the media are nearly silent no matter what the president does. Rather than make his look bad, they scarcely mention it when his government is sued for violating the Catholic Church’s first amendment rights. And as for the Democrats, they applaud his skill in putting Republicans on the defensive.

I have long since come to the conclusion that mainstream reporters and knee-jerk liberals have few principles. As long as their side triumphs, they have little concern about how this is achieved.

Yet the sad fact is that they may win this round. Barack may get to attract Hispanic voters via a transparently political ploy he blatantly describes as non-political. With crocodile tears in his eyes, he tells us this move is only fair, although last year he said it was beyond his powers.

Only what are Romney and the Republicans to do? If they oppose this policy too forcefully, it would be like kicking the Hispanics in the groin. Or if they go to the rooftops to scream that they aren’t going to tolerate such despotism any longer, they may appear as impotent as Peter Finch in the movie Network.

I am reminded of another Imperial Presidency—that of Andrew Jackson. Often parodied in the press as King Andrew, he frequently implemented policies of his own devising. His attitude was best reflected in a comment following a Supreme Court ruling he loathed.

After John Marshall and his colleagues ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that a Georgia law affecting the Cherokee Indians was unconstitutional, Jackson said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Barack Obama seems to have a similar attitude. Because almost nothing can be done between today and Election Day to neutralize his decision, he is daring his opponents to do anything. He assumes that if he wins reelection, he will be able to make his fiat stick, but if he doesn’t, it won’t matter because he will be gone.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University