Father’s Day Reflections: Our Children’s Future In America – Republic Or Imperial Presidency

The Immigration Debate: Obama’s Imperial Presidency – Obama’s Justice Department to Challenge Arizona  Immigration Law. For a detailed review of Arizona’s immigration law and the history of America’s immigration laws see: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/
Obama’s Justice Department has confirmed that it will file a legal challenge to Arizona’s Immigration law. A detailed review of the law can be found at the above site.


As this writer has stated in previous posts, the Administration’s challenge will fail.


The purpose of this post is not to review the constitutionality of the Arizona law; however, I will briefly state the three reasons the Arizona law will be found to be Constitutional.

1). The Arizona law does not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as it does not violate any individual’s rights to “equal protection” under the law. The Arizona Law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The law does not allow for any law enforcement officer to “stop or detain” an individual and ask for their identification. The law instructs law enforcement officers to question a “suspect” under investigation for the violation of some crime, other than an immigration crime, about their immigration status, if the suspect cannot produce identification during questioning. The law lists 11 different types of identification that will create a presumption of legal citizenship or legal residency.



2). The law does not violate Article 6 of the Constitution as it does not violate the Federal Government’ s right to legislate the country’s immigration laws. The Arizona law does not “usurp” the Federal Government’s right to set immigration quotas or to issue immigration documents. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to determine how many


immigrants will enter the Country every year and how many immigrants will be granted citizenship every year. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to set specific requirements for those seeking citizenship and criteria for “deporting” those who have entered the Country. The Arizona Law does not usurp any power preserved for the exclusive use of the Federal Government.

The Arizona law notes that Arizona Law enforcement officers have “concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility” with Federal Law Enforcement Officials for enforcing Federal Immigration law, something noted in the Federal Immigration statutes. Specifically, the Arizona law mandates that all Arizona State Law Enforcement officers comply with the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the last “comprehensive immigration law” passed by the U.S. Congress. The Arizona law does not usurp the Federal Government’s rights; the Arizona Law mandates state compliance with the statutes passed by the Federal Government.

I will briefly note here, that Article 6 of the Constitution reserves certain rights to the Federal Government. Article 6 reserves those rights for all three branches of the Federal Government; The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. The Obama Administration’s current actions are an attempt to usurp the constitutional powers granted to the legislative and judicial branches of our government. The Obama Administration believes in an “Imperial Presidency” rather than a “Constitutional Republic”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause                                                                http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm       

3). When the Courts review the constitutionality of any given law, the determination of constitutionality is not based on the possibility that some individual may commit an act of “misfeasance”. 


Misfeasance is defined as: a). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. b). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

 Unconstitutional is defined as: unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional 

 Example: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law or setting a 25 mile an hour speed limit. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of racial profiling. Racial profiling is an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!

Multiple sections of the Arizona Law prohibit racial profiling.  The Arizona Law is Constitutional. If any Arizona Law Enforcement Officer commits an act of “racial profiling” today, under either the new law or other existing Arizona Laws, that officer is guilty of “malfeasance” and has committed both a civil and criminal offense. Racial profiling is illegal in Arizona today, the new Arizona Law does not change that fact, and it confirms it. https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-immigration-debate-mr-president-apologize-to-the-state-of-arizona-misfeasance-is-not-unconstitutional-obama-race-baiter-in-chief/

Obama’s Imperial Presidency

The Obama Administration knows the Arizona Law to be Constitutional.

The Obama Administration’s challenge to the law is, however, rooted in a significant constitutional question. The Obama Administration is attempting to subvert our Constitution and create an Imperial Presidency.

Imperial Presidency vs. Constitutional Republic

The United States is a Constitutional Republic. A Republic is defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic  


In our Constitutional Republic we select our representatives and they govern with our consent. In our Constitutional Republic our Federal Government is divided into three equal branches, Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Each of the branches has its own rights and its own duties or responsibilities. The first such responsibility, a “duty” shared by every member of every branch of our Government, is the “duty” to “protect and defend our Constitution”. Our Constitution also states that any right not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the governments of the individual states.

Imperial is defined as:  like, or pertaining to an empire, emperor or empress. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Imperial

An emperor is defined as the male sovereign or supreme ruler of an empire: as in the emperors of Rome. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Emperor

Emperors were autocratic rulers: An autocracy is a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power.  An autocrat is a person (as in an Emperor) ruling with unlimited authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

A single ruler with unlimited power and unlimited authority. Power and authority taken from the people not granted by the people.

Under Imperial Rule all rights and civil liberties belong to the Emperor. Our Republic is founded on the belief that basic rights belong to the citizens of the Republic and are “inalienable”: that these basic rights cannot be transferred to someone else or taken away by the Government.


Obama’s Attempt to Circumvent the Constitution and Create an Imperial Presidency

Under our Constitutional Republic the right to create and pass laws rests with the Legislative Branches. Our Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Congress has the exclusive right to pass laws that establish immigration quotas or limits and that all “immigration quotas and limitations” established by Congress are binding upon the Executive Branch and the individual states. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have “concurrent jurisdiction” to enforce our Federal immigration laws. To enforce the Federal immigration laws, not to rewrite them. The Arizona law does not attempt to rewrite the laws passed by Congress, in fact, the Arizona law calls for the enforcement of the 1996 Federal Immigration Law – Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

President Obama and various members of the Obama Administration believe in the concept of “open borders”. The

 Obama Administration supports an “amnesty” for illegal aliens.


An “open borders policy” means the elimination of immigration quotas. Under an “open borders policy”: any migrant, from any country, would be free to enter and live in the United States once they crossed our border.

This post will not debate whether we should adopt an “open border policy” or grant yet an additional “amnesty”, the third “amnesty” in the last 30 years, before we secure our borders.

This post will note the Obama Administration’s attempt to usurp power granted constitutionally to the Legislative and Judicial branches and create an Imperial Presidency.

When the Obama Administration states that they want “comprehensive immigration reform” the Administration means they want an “open borders policy” with an “amnesty” for those currently within our borders illegally.

The overwhelming majority of American people are diametrically opposed to such a “open border policy” or the implementation of an additional “amnesty”.

Under our Constitutional Republic, implementing such a change in our “existing laws” would need to be initiated by our Congress not the Obama Administration or the Executive Branch. 

A proposal to adopt either an “open borders policy” or an “amnesty program” would be soundly defeated in both Houses of the U.S. Congress.

The Obama Administration wants to implement two immigration policies but lacks the Constitutional power to do so, two policies strongly opposed by the legislative branch and a majority of Americans.

Prevented constitutionally from unilaterally implementing these changes the Obama Administration has adopted policies and ignored existing laws in the Administration’s attempt to implement a “de facto” open border and amnesty program.  (“de facto”: actually existing, without lawful authority).  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de+facto )  

The Obama Administration is refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws. The Administration is willfully failing to secure our borders. The Administration is refusing to send appropriate resources to secure our borders and has even failed to deploy the 1200 National Guard Troops promised to our Border States. In adopting these actions the Obama Administration has moved to usurp (to use without authority or right) powers granted to the Congress under the Constitution. The Obama Administration cannot get an “amnesty program” or an “open borders policy” passed through Congress as the Constitution requires, so the Obama Administration is adopting extra constitutional (not authorized by or based on a constitution; beyond the provisions of a constitution) measures to achieve policies it cannot obtain constitutionally.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional 


The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona Law, not because the Administration believes the law to be unconstitutional, but because the Administration fears that other States will pass similar laws. The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona law because the Obama Administrations’ attempts to implement “de facto” amnesty and open borders policies will be thwarted by the States when the States move to enforce the laws passed constitutionally by Congress.

The Obama Administration views itself as an Imperial Presidency – with President Obama as the omnipotent autocrat – possessing


unlimited power, unlimited authority and unrestrained by Constitutional limitations. An autocrat free to ignore his oath to “protect and defend the constitution”, free to selectively enforce or ignore the laws of the land as he chooses, free to implement his policies without the advise or consent of the Congress or the American people.


Ancient Rome started as a Republic.  Like the United States, the Roman Republic was founded after the overthrow of a monarchy. The Roman Republic was based on a Constitution which honored the principles of separation of powers, of a need for a system of checks and balances within the Government.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

The end of the Roman Republic was brought about by the Roman leaders who “transitioned” Rome, leaders who “fundamentally transformed” Rome from a Republic to an Imperial State. A state ruled by autocratic Emperors. The Emperors were men who subverted the Roman Constitution for their own power, for their own political gain. The Emperor’s usurped the powers granted to the Roman Senate and Legislative Assembly and after consolidating their power proclaimed themselves perpetual dictators (Julius Caesar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic ),  Supreme Majesty (Augustus ), Imperator Caesar Maximus Naughtius Pretentious Stroppius Homosexius Nero Augustus (Nero,  http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nero ) and Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm).


Dictator: a person exercising absolute power, a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictator

My generation was very familiar with a saying (it is actually a book title), “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”. Rome rose as a Republic and Rome fell because it was “fundamentally transformed” into an autocratic Empire ruled by despots. Despot: a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat. any tyrant or oppressor. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot

It is ironic that America’s coming battle, a battle that will determine whether the Country will remain a Constitutional Republic or be “fundamentally transformed” into an Imperial Presidency, will be fought over the issue of illegal immigration, most particularly, illegal immigration into the State of Arizona. The President’s true objective, an extra constitutional usurpation of powers granted to Congress, is being disguised as a phony “civil rights issue”.  A false issue the President is exploiting to garner political support among his Hispanic and far left base. The President is guilty of “race baiting” as he moves to esatblish his Imperial Presidency. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=race+baiting&page=1&qsrc=2891&dm=all&ab=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2010%2Fmay%2F03%2Fobamas-race-baiting%2F&sg=aqQrV3cX93bwZwf8zn%2BMF2wfMlOuCjIOuGwZHEDm8Vk%3D&tsp=1277047957762The Hispanic portion of his base has very close ties to our southern neighbor, Mexico.

Mexico, the Country that twice had to fight to escape from the despotic rule of Emperors. (In 1821 when Mexico declared independence from Spain (Mexican Independence Day) and in 1867 at the end of The Second Mexican Empire). 
Mexico fought again, for a third time, to free the Country from another autocratic ruler (Porfirio Diaz) during the Mexican Revolution (1910 – 1920: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution).


How can the Country of Mexico, a Country that has tasted the violence of autocratic rule 3 times in the last 150 years and fought its Revolution less than 100 years ago, support or applaud the “fundamental transformation” of America into that which they, the Mexican people, want to flee. Mexico has rejected Imperial rule three times, yet Mexico would support the “fundamental transformation” of the America Republic into an Imperial Presidency.                                       
Is the purpose of coming to America rooted in a desire to share in the American Dream, to embrace the Republic for which it stands or is the goal to “fundamentally transform” America, transform the Republic into another Empire, an Empire ruled by an Imperial Presidency, an Imperial Presidency where one man or woman rules with unlimited authority and unlimited power.

Remember these two things: 1). There has never been a “compassionate dictator” or “despot”, and 2). Dictators are neither liberal nor conservative; they are first and always, dictators.

IRAQ 1991 - F15E


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: