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?

If you’re depressed about losing, libertarians are standing by to help
THE McELROY ZOO: Meet Tommy, who needs a home before winter
$22,600 for a library router for four users? No wonder states are broke
Bernanke’s ‘helicopter drop’ gave $1.2 trillion to Wall Street banks
If the state didn’t wither away for Marx and Engels, is there really a post-statist era ahead now?
Our methods of selling politicians seem designed for mental defectives
The applause I crave has become the applause I’m afraid to trust
Financial ignorance from your TV: Gold may not be around next year
In the name of ‘fairness,’ everyone forced to pay for expensive chair lifts