Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it.
History has shown us that, on extraordinarily rare occasions, it becomes necessary for the federal government to intervene on behalf of individuals whose 14th Amendment rights to legal due process and equal protection may be violated by a state.
Section 7 of the Constitution doesn't grant a power for the king to do whatever he wishes.
Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.
It should be remembered that the president cannot, by executive order, do things that affects the public at large unless there is some Congressional basis for it.
When you're allowing the Executive Branch to deprive somebody of a constitutional liberty without any process, that is something that affects all Americans because that's a precedent that can be used.
I can say that I have not done any culpable violation of the constitution.
Certainly, the president is expected to safeguard the Constitution by vetoing unconstitutional acts of Congress. This is especially true because many laws can only be brought before the courts in a collateral way, if at all.
If a president can enforce a part of a law and delay a part of a law, then does he have a power to not enforce any law he so chooses? If he can allow illegal aliens to freely run across our border, can he force legal citizens out of the country? Where would be the end of his power?