I want to start this op-ed by defining four things.
1. President: noun (often initial capital letter) the highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States.
2. Dictator: noun a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
3. Rule of law: noun the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.
4. Dictatorship: noun a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
According to Wikipedia, executive privilege is the power exercised by the President of the United States or other member of the executive office to resist subpoenas or other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government to access information or personnel relating to the executive branch.
It is not in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of constitutional activity.
"In October of 2010 President Obama told the Washington Press Corps that he was not a dictator and thus could not impose immigration reform on his own without Congress," according to Dr. Robert Owens in The History of the Future.
"In 2013 in interviews with Spanish language media he said,'I am not a king' and that he could not impose immigration reform on his own without Congress."
In all, he made this same statement on twenty-two separate occasions. But when he was unable to get Congress to allow him to do what he wanted to--in fact while Congress was in the middle of changing after a vote that gave the majority to Republicans who would most likely not take Mr. Obama's side in the matter--he did exactly what he, a professed constitutional professor, had admitted he could not do. He made law.
Making laws is not the privilege of the executive branch of the United States government. That duty is held by Congress. It is the executive branch's duty to uphold and enforce existing laws.
It may be that you are of the minority who approves of the president's executive action, giving millions of illegal aliens--people who are here not through legal means, but by breaking the laws of our nation--not only privileges normally held by legal citizens, but allowing them to claim back tax revenue to the tune of $35,000 each. Yes, that's right. Because Mr. Obama's actions allow illegal aliens to file taxes, they can--legally--claim back tax revenue, even though they did not contribute to the tax revenue that legal citizens do.
"From recess appointments while Congress is in session to refusing to enforce the laws of the land to unilaterally remaking immigration law, this President is fundamentally transforming our system of government," continues Dr. Owen.
So when Rudy Gulliani stated that President Obama did not love America, I think I have to agree with him. Not that Mr. Obama does not love HIS country. I believe he does. The problem in my mind is which America does he really love? The one in which I grew up, ruled by laws that were changed legally by Congress after the representatives brought the desires of their constituents to bear? Or the one in which presidents have the power to change laws at their whim?
I side with Trey Gowdy who rightly said that while you may like what is happening now, by ignoring the rule of law, you open up a Pandora's Box for the future in which other presidents may take things even further.
So my question is, if a president makes his own laws, what is the difference between him and a dictator?