When contrasting the power of a king with that of a president, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #69 that “[T]he one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies.”
Last November, Obama did just that. He conferred positive privileges; namely, Social Security cards and work permits on those who entered the country illegally, contrary to laws passed by Congress, which holds plenary power over immigration.
Irrespective of one’s views on the underlying policy, if a justice were to adhere to some semblance of legal jurisprudence, Obama’s action would be considered the most unconstitutional act to ever come before the court. After all, sovereignty is something even King George could not tinker with unless he had the support of parliament. Yet, after today’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, we are left hanging by a thread, praying that Chief Justice John Roberts won’t serve as the fifth vote to rubber stamp Obama’s amnesty.
Here are five key observations from the oral arguments:
And by the way, given their presence at the Supreme Court building today, illegal aliens are anything but “in the shadows.” Justice Sotomayor must not have a window in her office.
For those of us who are true constitutionalists, we don’t believe the courts should be the final arbiter of all political questions. But now that five justices believe they have the power to strike down marriage – the building block of all civilization – how can it be that at least four of them refuse to strike down the most profound lawless action of a president?
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.