Who's the tyrant? Whose rights has Obama violated? What law has he ignored?

Lincoln's abatement of haebeus corpus comes to mind as unilaterally abrogating an explicitly enumerated Constitutional civil right by Executive Action. Which is indeed a case where the President has deprecated guaranteed Constitutional right. 

And that was in response to the reality at that time that much of the civilian population currently administered by the Federal Government was likely to engage in actions that could not be ignored if the Republic was to survive. New York Draft riots being a prime example, as well as the military taking over Kentucky.

F.D.R. had similar instances as well, whether it was dealing with known Axis agents or even interring U.S. citizens who were suspected of potential loyalties to one of the Axis powers. 

Bush's actions were justifiably of the same scope an measure compared to Lincoln's and F.D.R.'s actions in that all three occasions were in direct response to alien actions and threats that had the stated goal of eliminating the independence and authority of the Federal Government. In Bush's case however the Patriot Act passed by Congress post haste Bush's actions, confirmed what Bush had done with Congressional authorization.

Lincoln and F.D.R. were never given that imprimatur nor was it politically necessary at the time since none of the then political parties offered any resistance to their actions because the threat that initiated their actions was obvious to everyone. That the Confederacy and the Axis Powers were threats was not even debated. 

In Obama's case, he has previously stated that to take the actions he took by Executive Order would not only be unjustified but also Constitutionally illegal because there is no basis upon which he could justify the change in enforcement of the laws. Although he disagrees with the law as it currently stands, he reiterated that he was Constitutionally required to enforce the laws and urge Congress to change them to reflect a legal structure that he could personally support. That is what President Obama stated as his informed opinion as both being the Executive as well as being a Constitutional Law scholar & expert.

So where is the threat to the existence of the Federal Government that normally would accompany an Executive Order of the magnitude where a President states he will not seek enforcement of a set of laws? He has discarded his previous public statements where he said he was Constitutionally unable to stop enforcing the laws because they met Constitutional scrutiny and left no political or Constitutional avenue open where he could adopt the stance that the President of Mexico was asking for.

A tyrant was previously defined at the start of the thread. No Agency of the Executive branch gave him Constitutional cause to act by Executive Order. He has abrogated the law as passed by Congress, signed by previous Executives, and upheld by the Federal Courts as being legal. By abrogating the enforcement of the laws, he has directly infringed upon the legal citizens and alien citizens who have adhered to the law instead of violating it. By now stating that he will not enforce the laws that effect illegal minors, and instead enact by Executive Order the main components of the Congressionally defeated Dream Act, he has disenfranchised the legal voters of the United States and their Congressional representation at the expense of an unprecedented expansion of Executive authority that favors illegal aliens over legal citizens and aliens.

He disagreed with Congress not passing the Dream Act. So he has caused it to be implemented by Executive Order. 


Its kinda a big deal. You have the biggest Executive power grab since Nixon. The difference is that Nixon tried to extend the authority and was rebuked by the Press, Congress, and the threat of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court resulting in potential presentment of a Bill of Impeachment before Congress. In this case however, you have a Press which is not even making an issue of it in the mainstream media, a split Congress where the Senate has no interest in tarnishing Obama's actions before an election 6 months away, and a judicial system which has so far not been presented with a request for injunction due to the perverse fact that Obama's actions require a challenge drawn from one who is impacted by the order directly or by a State which has been directly harmed by the Executive order that has gone through the lower Federal Courts seeking injunctive relief. 

So when you have no means of changing the actions of an executive by civil process, and the action you want to change is the result of an abrogation of civil process, you are left with two logical results.

The first is that there is no substantial civil process legally standing that would prevent the action in the first place nor allow its change after the fact. The second is that the legal civil process has been abrogated by personal act by a person acting outside of that process in direct challenge to the civil process's scope of authority, thereby rendering that authority as subordinate to the outside authority.

Or in more simpler terms and definition, the second logical result is that you are suffering at the hands of a tyrant who is acting outside the political and civil framework.

Given that Obama stated that he could not do what he has done and still be Constitutionally valid, the fact that he has now gone ahead and done what he said Constitutionally would be illegal for him to do logically indicates that he is now acting outside the civil scope of authority he previously restrained himself to. 

So the short answer. Obama would be the tyrant. He has violated the rights of all legal citizens and aliens & abrogated the State's rights under the Constitution. And the laws he is ignoring would be those that he has abrogated by Executive Order since the Dream Act which would have changed those laws was not passed.