"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"
I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions…
Obama in January (2014) declared his intent to use executive power to enact policy changes without Congress, and he has lived up to his promise, making aggressive moves on climate change, immigration, land protections and the minimum wage.
Obama knew he would have to rely on executive action given Republican control of Congress, and he has raced through 2014 to get as much done as possible.
The pace has only picked up since the midterm elections, with big announcements on immigration, climate change and foreign policy with Cuba.
“He’s pushing every executive power to the limit,” said Robert Cresanti, executive vice president of government relations at the International Franchise Association.
Obama after the midterm elections issued an order protecting about 4.5 million illegal immigrants from deportation.
Obama directed federal agencies not to deport the parents of immigrants who are living legally in the U.S. He also expanded the scope of young immigrants who qualify for such protections.
The move enraged Republicans, who accused the president of going around Congress to act alone on immigration.
And Republicans have promised to take action to curb the orders. But it’s unclear whether there’s much they can do. Even a government shutdown would leave most federal employees involved with processing the new immigrant cases at their desks.
No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.
Yes, the somewhat arcane — yet remarkably durable — way in which presidential elections are decided tilts toward Democrats in 2016, as documented by nonpartisan political handicapper Nathan Gonzales in a recent edition of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report.
Gonzales notes that if you add up all of the states that are either “safe” for the eventual Democratic nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales’s rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes.
That Democratic advantage becomes even more pronounced if you add to the party’s total the states that “lean” Democratic, according to Gonzales. Put Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) into the Democratic column and the party’s electoral vote count surges to 249 — just 21 votes short of winning a third straight presidential race. (Gonzales doesn’t rate any states as “lean Republican.”)
Such a scenario is decidedly realistic given that President Obama not only won all three of those “lean” Democratic states in 2008 and 2012 but that he did so by an average of eight points in Iowa and nine points in Nevada. And, the last Republican presidential nominee to carry Pennsylvania was George H.W. Bush, way back in 1988.
Gonzales’s analysis, which some will dismiss as premature but I applaud (it’s never too early!), reaffirms one of the most important — and undercovered — story lines in presidential politics in the past decade: the increasing Democratic dominance in the electoral college.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/democrats_for_a_dictatorial_presidency.html#ixzz3VExkvfKS
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook