“Well, it would be overtaken by events if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals such that they know what their setting is going to be, not just for the term of a president but on a permanent basis,” said Romney.
Asked if he would leave Obama’s policy in place while he worked out a long-term policy, Romney replied, “we will look at that setting as we reach that.”
If you were looking for anything that sounded coherent, keep looking.
Troy Senick at Richochet gives Mitt Romney some much needed advice in how he should have (and still can) handle President Obama's unilateral change of our nation's immigration laws:
[The constitutional] line of argument has two great virtues for Romney. First, it's correct. Second, it fits into a broader narrative. This comes from the same president who upended the conventional role of secured creditors in the auto bailouts, who eviscerated the traditional constitutional understanding of the recess appointment power, who continuously walks all over traditional protections of religious liberty, and who -- one hopes -- will soon be found to have trespassed across constitutional boundaries with Obamacare.
That's the line of attack: not that a professional politician is motivated by political considerations, but that a former law school lecturer who rose to prominence criticizing the legal excesses of the previous administration won't allow his authority to be cabined by something as quaint as the Constitution of the United States.
Instead of preening about the other side playing politics (isn't the job of a politician to practice politics?), Romney should rise to the level of a constitutional argument. It would serve him and the people well.
No comments:
Post a Comment