When Barack Obama issued an order last week that will allow some undocumented immigrants to say in the United States without fear of prosecution, people generally supported it or opposed it based on the way they see the issue of immigration. Those who favor fewer restrictions on immigration welcomed the order. Those who don’t really like immigration denounced it.
The more I think about it, the more I think the immigration debate is completely secondary to the real issue. No matter whether you favor immigration or oppose it — for whatever your reasons — you should be afraid of this order, because it’s a very blunt statement by a sitting U.S. president that he can ignore laws that he doesn’t like.
Tomorrow, we expect the U.S. Supreme Court to issue its ruling about the constitutionality of key provisions of ObamaCare. If the court strikes down the law as unconstitutional, what’s to stop Obama from using the same principle he used with immigration and simply say he won’t abide by the law as interpreted by the court?
Now let’s look at the opposite case. Let’s say that the court upholds ObamaCare on Thursday. Then let’s say that Mitt Romney is elected president in November. Why couldn’t he simply issue an order for his administration to ignore the health care reform laws if he wanted to? How would that be any different from what Obama has done?

Envy drives hatred for wealthy, but I want to earn my riches
Why is real love so hard to find? Look into a mirror for the culprit
I struggle to reflect warm love instead of the world’s cold fear
How does modern culture escape ‘little boxes made of ticky tacky’?
Why is it ‘isolationism’ to oppose killing those who didn’t attack us?
‘Citizen of the world’? Better to be sovereign than citizen of anywhere
X-ray scanners used by TSA banned in Europe over health concerns
No ebooks for me: Reading is about more than simply absorbing data