Coming soon to the American political landscape, the Supreme Court hears the Barack Obama Administration’s appeal to vacate a lower court’s ruling on his Amnesty Executive Orders. 26 states – over half – sued the executive branch of the government claiming that the nation’s chief executive cannot just change the law to allow five million people in the country illegally to stay at the expense of the taxpayers with the states on the hook for the tab.
What does this mean, how will they vote, and what do terms like “prosecutorial discretion” mean? Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano explains in laymans’ terms just what the heck is going on.
[iframe id=”http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4711681890001″ align=”center” mode=”normal” autoplay=”no” maxwidth=”640″]
So, right before the Republican Convention when the GOP nominee for president will be chosen, we get to find out whether or not another one of Obama’s executive orders gets shot down. This should be interesting.
But it was the rest of Judge Napolitano’s comments that need to be digested. He was surprised the Supreme Court took the case. The executive order was already enjoined, or stopped. A second court upheld it. Given the track record of Obama’s executive orders at the Supreme Court level (those that have been challenged have largely gone down in flames), it will be interesting to see if prosecutorial discretion holds up for 5 million people as opposed to the occasional one or two.
It should be a given no brainer in the American legal system that no executive just makes up law, and when the lawmaking body says “no” to proposals, either the proposal goes away or compromises are made to get the law to the place where it can be passed. No attempt to work with the Congress was made in this case. The reality is that the president, as powerful as that position is, cannot simply make up law. That is what Barack Obama tried to do, and that is what the attorneys general of 26 states are telling him he cannot do.