The Case Against Obama’s Nuclear Option

Even if reform is needed and legal, endowing the presidency with new, unilateral powers is a dangerous precedent.

National Journal
Ron Fournier
Aug. 7, 2014, 5:59 a.m.

On the is­sues of im­mig­ra­tion re­form and Amer­ica-bolt­ing cor­por­ate “in­ver­sions,” I sym­path­ize with Pres­id­ent Obama’s de­sire to vastly ex­pand the ex­ec­ut­ive branch’s au­thor­ity. By­passing Con­gress may be leg­al. The re­forms he wants may be a good idea. But when I look bey­ond the next elec­tion and set aside my is­sue bi­ases, I re­luct­antly con­clude that it would be very wrong.

De­pend­ing on how far Obama ex­tends pres­id­en­tial au­thor­ity — and he sug­ges­ted Wed­nes­day that he’s will­ing to stretch it like soft taffy — this could be a polit­ic­al nuc­le­ar bomb. The man whose found­a­tion­al prom­ise was unity (“I don’t want to pit red Amer­ica against blue Amer­ica”) could seal his fate as the most po­lar­iz­ing pres­id­ent in his­tory.

Is it leg­al? Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Jac­ob Lew said last month that after re­view­ing the tax code his de­part­ment de­term­ined that “we do not be­lieve we have the au­thor­ity” to act uni­lat­er­ally against com­pan­ies that re­nounce their cit­izen­ship to take ad­vant­age of friendly tax rates and reg­u­la­tions abroad.

On im­mig­ra­tion, Obama said last month, “ac­tu­ally, I don’t” have au­thor­ity to stop de­port­a­tions. Re­spond­ing to a heck­ler who ar­gued oth­er­wise, Obama said, “The easy way out is to try to yell and pre­tend like I can do something by vi­ol­at­ing our laws. And what I’m pro­pos­ing is the harder path, which is to use our demo­crat­ic pro­cesses to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve — but it won’t be as easy as just shout­ing. It re­quires us lob­by­ing and get­ting it done.”

Im­mig­ra­tion and tax re­form didn’t get done, and the pres­id­ent dis­patched his law­yers in search of loop­holes. Here’s a whop­per: Obama sug­ges­ted Wed­nes­day that the short-term cost of deal­ing with the south­ern bor­der crisis could jus­ti­fy sweep­ing uni­lat­er­al ac­tion on im­mig­ra­tion re­form. “That’s well with­in our au­thor­it­ies and pro­sec­utori­al dis­cre­tion.”

Which brings us to the next ques­tion. Even if act­ing alone is leg­al “¦

Are the pro­posed re­forms a good idea? The in­ver­sion is­sue is com­plic­ated, but I would fo­cus my at­ten­tion on com­pan­ies such as Mylan that profit off U.S. tax­pay­ers while re­noun­cing U.S. cit­izen­ship. Even the CEO’s fath­er — Sen. Joe Manchin of West Vir­gin­ia — thinks that what she did should be il­leg­al.

On im­mig­ra­tion, re­form is a great idea. Con­ser­vat­ive Re­pub­lic­ans are dumb­ing down the defin­i­tion of “am­nesty” to cov­er any act that doesn’t lead to the de­port­a­tion (or self-de­port­a­tion) of the ap­prox­im­ately 12 mil­lion people liv­ing in the United States il­leg­ally. The oth­er ex­treme would be to im­me­di­ately grant them leg­al status and/or cit­izen­ship, and to em­brace un­lim­ited im­mig­ra­tion go­ing for­ward. Both of the scen­ari­os are un­real­ist­ic.

Between those two poles lays an enorm­ous middle ground that would be­ne­fit both parties polit­ic­ally, up­hold the rule of law, and be true to Amer­ica’s his­tory as a melt­ing pot.

Anti-am­nesty Re­pub­lic­ans are al­most ex­clus­ively to blame for the cur­rent grid­lock, de­fy­ing House Speak­er John Boehner and oth­er prag­mat­ic party lead­ers who un­der­stand that the GOP has a grim fu­ture as long as His­pan­ics, Asi­ans, and oth­er non­whites think the Re­pub­lic­an Party hates them.

Obama’s party is partly re­spons­ible for this mess, be­cause of the cyn­ic­al choices made dur­ing his first two years in of­fice to punt on re­form, in part be­cause the Demo­crats who ran Con­gress wanted to be able to por­tray the GOP as anti-minor­ity in the 2010 elec­tions.

Obama denies culp­ab­il­ity, but the re­cord is clear, and al­most any Demo­crat in Wash­ing­ton will con­cede, privately, that the pres­id­ent broke his prom­ise to make im­mig­ra­tion re­form a top pri­or­ity in 2009-10.

For ar­gu­ment’s sake, let’s say Obama is right on the is­sue and has leg­al au­thor­ity to act. The big ques­tion is “¦

Would it be wrong to end-run Con­gress? An­oth­er way to put it might be, “Would more po­lar­iz­a­tion in Wash­ing­ton and throughout the coun­try be wrong?” How about ex­po­nen­tially more po­lar­iz­a­tion, grid­lock, and in­ci­vil­ity? If the pres­id­ent goes too far, he owns that dis­aster.

The most im­port­ant con­text to con­sider is the mood of the coun­try. Eighty per­cent of Amer­ic­ans think the polit­ic­al sys­tem is broken, ac­cord­ing to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journ­al poll, the same per­cent­age that dis­ap­proves of Con­gress. A strong ma­jor­ity think Obama is do­ing a poor job as pres­id­ent. What those num­bers tell me: Most Amer­ic­ans un­der­stand that both parties are re­spons­ible, though not equally, for break­ing polit­ics

In a land­mark study, the Pew Re­search Cen­ter re­cently con­cluded that Amer­ic­ans “are more po­lar­ized along par­tis­an lines than at any point in the past 25 years.” The av­er­age gap in views between Demo­crat­ic and Re­pub­lic­an par­tis­ans has nearly doubled, with most of the in­crease scored dur­ing the Bush-Obama era.

My col­league Ron Brown­stein wrote a wa­ter­shed book in 2007, The Second Civil War, that spoke of this di­vide. “The polit­ic­al sys­tem has evolved to a point where the vast ma­jor­ity of elec­ted of­fi­cials in each party feel com­fort­able only ad­van­cing ideas ac­cept­able to their core sup­port­ers — their “base,” in the jar­gon of mod­ern cam­paigns. But pro­gress against these prob­lems, and al­most all oth­er chal­lenges fa­cing Amer­ica, re­quires com­pre­hens­ive solu­tions that marry ideas favored by one party and op­posed by the oth­er.”

Re­gard­less of the jus­ti­fic­a­tion, act­ing alone denies Obama a full view of the prob­lem and, with no mar­riage of ideas, he al­most cer­tainly ex­acer­bates the “dan­ger­ous im­passe” that Brown­stein labeled a civil war.

New York Times colum­nist Ross Douthat ar­gues that this isn’t merely a case of a pres­id­ent re­spond­ing to a do-noth­ing Con­gress. “It’s lim­ited caesar­ism as a cal­cu­lated strategy, in­ten­ded to both di­vide the op­pos­i­tion and lay the ground­work for more ag­gress­ive uni­lat­er­al­ism down the road.” If you don’t buy any oth­er ar­gu­ment, con­sider this one: En­dow­ing the pres­id­ency with ex­traordin­ary power would be an ex­tremely short-sighted and selfish move.

Do Obama and fel­low Demo­crats really think the Oval Of­fice will nev­er again be oc­cu­pied by a Re­pub­lic­an?

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5152) }}

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×