Did YOU vote for an Imperial Presidency?

copied from the Heritage Foundation:

Imperial
Presidency

The United States was born when rebellious colonists declared
their independence from an imperial ruler who had vastly overstepped his bounds.
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an
absolute Tyranny over these States," they wrote in their Declaration
of Independence.

Today's presidency lacks the regal air of George
III. But imperialism is back, in a big way.

Last week, the Obama
Administration's Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum
instructing U.S. immigration officials to use their "prosecutorial discretion"
to create a policy scheme contrary to existing law, designed to implement
legislation that Congress hasn't passed.

The President himself has
admitted he doesn't have the authority to do this. "The idea of doing things on
my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But
that's not how our system works," he told Hispanic activists
last year. "That's not how our democracy
functions."

Indeed.

We can now see before us a persistent pattern
of disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative
decision-making without—and often in spite of—congressional action. This
violates the spirit—and potentially the letter—of the Constitution's separation
of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the
President.

Examples abound:

• Even though the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the President's
  cap-and-trade plan, his Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon
  dioxide, the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it
  could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
  
  
• After the Employee Free Choice Act—designed to bolster labor unions'
  dwindling membership rolls—was defeated by Congress, the National Labor
  Relations Board announced a rule that would implement "snap elections" for union
  representation, limiting employers' abilities to make their case to workers and
  virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace
  democracy.
  
  
• After an Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress,
  the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would regulate the Web
  anyway, even despite a federal court's ruling that it had no authority to do
  so.
  
  
• Although Congress consistently has barred the Department of Education from
  getting involved in curriculum matters, the Administration has offered waivers
  for the No Child Left Behind law in exchange for states adopting national
  education standards, all without congressional
  authorization.

Likewise, the Administration has often simply
refused to enforce laws duly enacted by Congress:

• Since it objects to existing federal immigration laws, the Administration
  has decided to apply those laws selectively and actively prevent the state (like
  Arizona) from enforcing those laws themselves.
  
  
• Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the
  Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those
  laws.
  
  
• DOJ also has announced that it would stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage
  Act or defending it from legal challenge rather than seeking legislative
  recourse.

On Tuesday, the President invoked executive privilege
to avoid handing over some 1,300 documents in an ongoing
Congressional investigation. The Supreme Court has held that executive
privilege cannot be invoked to shield wrongdoing. Is that what's happening in
this case? "Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an
illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will
require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of
them is covered by executive privilege—and more," Heritage legal scholar Todd
Gaziano writes.

Earlier this year the President crossed the threshold
of constitutionality when he gave "recess appointments" to four officials who
were subject to Senate confirmation, even though the Senate wasn't in recess.
Gaziano wrote
at the time that such appointments "would render the Senate's advice and
consent role to normal appointments almost meaningless. It is a grave
constitutional wrong."

There is no telling where such disregard may go
next, but the trend is clear, and it leads further and further away from the
constitutional rule of law.

The President has unique and powerful
responsibilities in our constitutional system as chief executive officer, head
of state, and commander in chief. Those powers do not include the authority to
make laws or to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The President
- like judges or Members of Congress - takes an oath to uphold the Constitution
in carrying out the responsibilities of his office.

Indeed, the President
takes a unique oath, pledging he "shall faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States" and "preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States." We don't need a new Declaration of
Independence, but we do need a President who will defend and vigorously exert
his or her legitimate powers, recognizing that those powers are not arbitrary or
unlimited.