Under our constitutional system, the executive executes the laws that Congress has passed. It should not be executing laws that Congress has rejected.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Executive orders are meant for occasional use, not to force something through that the people's elected representatives aren't going to make law.
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.
You let Congress make the laws. You work with the Congress as the president to make sure that those laws are accurate and to the best of our ability, but you don't turn it over to the federal judges to make those laws.
It is the function of the President, representing the executive principle, to execute the laws.
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.
As a member of Congress, I believe Congress must provide oversight of actions by the Executive Branch as our system of checks and balances requires.
The president and his open border allies may hate the fact that the Constitution gets in the way of their political agenda, but it's up to Congress to take bold action and stop this lawlessness.
Congress is the appropriate place to make laws about our country's immigration policy; it is not something that the president gets to decide on his own.
In order for the Constitution to work, you have to have law-abiding people. You have to have people willing to obey the Constitution, willing to follow the law. Obama doesn't care. He is the law.
Historically, Congress hasn't paid much attention to the confines the Constitution establishes.
No opposing quotes found.