Court hears immigration case

The Supreme Court has chance to end Obama Administration executive order

More than a year ago, the Obama Administration issued an executive order that would protect more than 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation. More than half the states came out in opposition to this action and struck it down in the lower courts. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Obama issued his executive order after a failed attempt to push similar legislation through Congress. Many view this action as a direct attempt to circumvent the legislative branch and exempt the presidency from the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.

The Obama Administration has stated such an action falls within the president’s power of prosecutorial discretion. Despite the White House’s claims, this particular mandate does not exist in accordance with the precedent set by previous presidencies.

Former executive action taken in such cases has always been in either supplementation to or accordance with congressional legislation. This order not only ignores congressional authority, it defies it.

Although the action has been effectually prevented up to this point, many worry that the Supreme Court will continue its trend of supporting the Obama Administration and uphold the executive order.

There is certainly evidence to support these fears. However, this particular case is unique in its inception. The issue has already been brought up and struck down by Congress. Therein lies the ultimate evidence against the White House.

If Obama truly believed his mandate was justified and in agreement with his Constitutional authority, he would not have attempted to navigate the labyrinth that is Congress. He would have pushed his agenda through executive action to begin with. Yet he sought Congressional approval.

Additionally, this action blatantly disrespects and diminishes the power and authority of the legislative branch. By ignoring Constitutional authority, the Obama Administration has devolved congressional proceedings to routine check-ups rather than a system of legal accountability.

Unlike previous Supreme Court cases involving the Obama Administration, the crux of this case rests not in the content of the policy but rather in the process of conception. Had Obama bypassed Congress when this legislation was first introduced, it may have endured judicial review. As it stands now, there is little hope for its survival.

Many have cited this case as an example of the need to for a Republican president and conservative justices. This is drivel. For starters, absolute power corrupts absolutely. As long as Congress and the Supreme Court continue to concede authority to the executive branch, it does not matter if the president is a Republican or Democrat. Power will be abused and corruption will thrive.

Moreover, Republican presidents have appointed the majority of current Supreme Court justices. Even if more conservative judges are appointed to the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee what the results will be.

Rather than obsessing over the political history and disposition of potential justices, we should focus on their character. We should desire judges of integrity – judges who are honest, sincere and good natured. Those are the kinds of justices we should desire for the highest court in the land.

With those kinds of judges, the American people need not worry about situations like this.

EAGEN is an opinion writer.