Kirsten Powers writes:
When asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos about Boehner's claim that the president had exceeded his executive authority, Obama retorted, "I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they're doing nothing." He went on to explain that his administrative actions regarding immigration were OK because the GOP wouldn't work with him and "the majority of the American people want immigration reform done."
Notice that the former constitutional law professor did not make a substantive legal case in defense of his executive power grabs. He merely stated that what he did was popular, ergo his extra-constitutional actions are fine. A more reassuring answer would include explaining how his actions are consistent with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has seemed less than impressed with Obama's constitutional claims. Last Thursday, the justices tossed his attempt to unilaterally declare the Senate in recess so he could appoint officials to the National Labor Relations Board. Another of the administration's constitutional arguments was rebuked the same day when a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against a Massachusetts law creating 35-foot-limited-speech-buffer zones outside abortion clinics. The Obama administration had argued in support of this government-created zone where abortion supporters were allowed to speak but anti-abortion activists were not.
So it is with executive power. Obama says he has executive power to invade Libya without congressional approval. Obama acts as judge, jury and executioner in assassinating American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, and declares it constitutional. Considering his track record before the Supreme Court, all these claims should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
Liberals who obsessed over President Bush's abuses of executive power are suspiciously silent now, or worse, defend the same behavior they found abhorrent in a Republican.//