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?

In winner-take-all systems, swing voters matter only at election time
Time for anger? Dissent is good, but ask what the dissenters stand for
Christmas looks different now, but I still see joy with eyes of a child
NTSB demands states ban all phone use for drivers, even hands-free
When you make your life choices, you also pick the consequences
OK, morons, we’ll finally admit it: We really are smarter than you
Norman Rockwell or Norman Bates? Holidays are dysfunctional for some
As nightmares plague my friends, I’m grateful mine have subsided