The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
The President and the Rule of Law
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld an injunction issued by a federal district court in Texas against the federal government, thereby preventing it from implementing President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration. Critics had argued and two federal courts have now agreed that the orders effectively circumvented federal law and were essentially unconstitutional.

Though the injunction on its face restrains officials in the Department of Homeland Security, it is really a restraint on the president himself. Here is the back story.

President Obama has long wished to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws to make it easier for people who are here illegally to remain here and to make it easier for them eventually to acquire the attributes of citizenship. He may have a bighearted moral motivation, or he may have a partisan political motivation. I don’t know which it is, but his motivation has driven him to use extraconstitutional means to achieve his ends.

During his first term in office, he attempted to have federal laws changed — quite properly at first — by offering proposals to Congress, which it rejected. That rejection left in place a complex regulatory scheme that is partially administered by DHS and partially by the Department of Justice. It left about 11.3 million people unlawfully present in the United States.
The conscious decision of Congress not to change the law in the face of such a large number of undocumented people here left those people, adults and children, exposed to deportation. It also left them entitled to financial benefits paid for by the states in which they reside.

Deportation is a lengthy and expensive process. The courts have ruled that all people subject to deportation are entitled to a hearing, with counsel paid for by the government. If they lose, they are entitled to an appeal, with counsel paid for by the government. The government has teams of prosecutors, defense counsel and judges who address only deportations. The highest number of people the government has successfully deported in a year is about 250,000, which was done in 2013. If you add removals without trial (many are voluntary) and rejections at the border, the number swells to 438,000 a year.

While awaiting deportation, those people here unlawfully and not confined are entitled to the social safety net that states offer everyone else, as well as the direct benefits states make available to citizens, such as public schooling, access to hospital emergency rooms, and housing and personal living assistance.

Frustrated that Congress thwarted his will, President Obama — resorting to his now infamous and probably regretted one-liner that he can govern by using a pen and a phone — issued a series of executive orders in 2012 to various federal agencies, directing them to cease deportation of undocumented people if they complied with certain standards that the president wished of them. The standards, compliance with which would bar deportation, were essentially the same as those that the president had sought and Congress had rejected.

Can the president write his own laws or procedures?


In the litigation that came to a head early this week, 26 states, led by Texas, sued the federal government. In that lawsuit, the states argued that they would be made to endure unbearable financial burdens if the undocumented folks stayed where they are and if the states continued to make the same social safety net available to them as they make available to their lawful residents. Thus, the states argued, the president forced the states to spend money they hadn’t budgeted or collected to support a legal scheme that Congress had not only never authorized but expressly rejected.

Can the president write his own laws and procedures?

The states also argued in their lawsuit that if the DHS and DOJ complied with the president’s executive orders, those federal departments would be exceeding their authority under the statutes because the president was exceeding his authority. This is a president who has argued dozens of times in public that he is not a king and that he lacks the ability to recast the laws as he wishes they had been written.

Can the president write his own laws and procedures?

In a word: No. The president can issue executive orders to officials in the executive branch of government directing those officials to enforce the laws as the president wishes them to be enforced — within the letter and spirit of those laws. But those executive orders cannot write new laws or revise old laws or ignore existing laws that the Congress clearly expects to be enforced. That is just what a federal district court judge ruled earlier this year and just what a federal appellate court ruled in affirming the district court earlier this week.

All people who embrace the rule of law — whether they are for open borders or for an impenetrable border wall — should embrace these rulings because they keep the president within the confines of the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold.

Under our constitutional system of supposedly limited government, all legislative power is vested in Congress. The president enforces the laws; he doesn’t write them. His oath of office commits him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and it further commits him to enforce the federal laws “faithfully” — meaning whether he personally agrees with them or not.

The clash between the president and the courts is as old as our republic itself. Courts are traditionally loath to interfere with the business of Congress or the president. Yet when the behavior of another branch of government defies core constitutional norms, it is the duty of the courts in a case properly before them to say what the Constitution means and to order compliance with it.

Copyright 2015 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, Illegal Immigration 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The president is above the law. Anyone enjoying his protection therefore is also above the law. That’s why Wall Street’s business model is fraud and nobody goes to jail. The Constitution is not a living document. It is stone cold dead. It was destroyed by Democrats and Republicans. Anyone supporting either party is complicit in the crime.

  2. OutWest says:

    This battle was lost with the Affordable Care Act. Congress, at Obama’s bidding, passed this legislation in secret as to its substance. The people’s representation in congress refused to tell the people what they were up to. Accordingly, the unvetted law had glaring shortcomings that the court “fixed” with no regard for the lack of notification or review by the people. Those few that did read the legislation should have the right to have their expectations that the law means what the plain language says.

    Perhaps not the lower courts but the courts with the final say have become apologists and fixers for Obama rather than protectors of the public and disciplinants of the legislative process.

  3. David says:

    Mr Napolitano just published a column arguing that unrestricted travel across national borders is a natural right. He wouldn’t grant the US Congress the authority to control immigration if he were in a position to decide.

    He doesn’t care if they come, he just wants it to be his idea.

    • Replies: @Wally
  4. Wally says: • Website

    “travel across”means travel across, not the right to remain.

    Catch up.

  5. Tom_R says:


    I am glad the Courts have retrained this lawless man Obama in his scam called “executive amnesty.” It is good to see our otherwise lawless pro-Democratic party Judiciary stand up and follow the law for a change.

    Issuing executive orders without statutory authority should be a criminal offense (it it not already is) not only for all the President, but for all the employees below it and everybody should have standing to sue the govt. workers who violate the statute or the constitution, irrespective of the executive orders.

  6. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Justice is a matter of who is seated where.

    Consider the Court of the Law. It is committed to justice.

    But the judge, jury, lawyers, and witnesses(called to the stand) are in a different position than the accused who is being tried.

    There was a time when whites used to dominate the Justice Narrative. Whites said to non-whites, “You guys are a bunch of savage, barbaric, or backward idiots, and we white folks are so much more advanced than you. So, it is our right to rule over you people, and it is your responsibility to prove that you’re a credit to your race.”
    Whites used to be the judge and the lawyers and the jury.

    But that is no longer the case. White race is being put on trial for all the ‘crimes of history’. The Judge is the Jew. The prosecutors are Jews, homos, Negroes, and illegals. The defense attorney is a useless cuck who wants to ‘settle’ and advises his client to admit his guilt and beg for leniency.

    And the jury is an ever-increasing pool of non-whites. With each passing year, the jury grows ever darker. When whites even lose the jury, they are really cooked.

  7. Justice is a matter of who is seated where.

    Consider the Court of the Law. It is committed to justice.

    But the judge, jury, lawyers, and witnesses(called to the stand) are in a different position than the accused who is being tried.

    So, you think with a different seating arrangement, courtroom justice would be impossible?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV