What is President Barack Obama’s game?

I firmly believe in the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. The Constitution is the law of the land and must be followed as is, until changed through self-contained procedures. Through their oath of office, politicians, despite what they may believe, do not have the option whether to follow the Constitution.

I am ecstatic the Romeike family will be allowed to stay in the U.S. The German family legally came to the U.S. in 2008, fearing government retribution for homeschooling their children, which is against German law.

However, there are issues with the process used. An immigration panel overturned asylum, citing a supposed lack of persecution. In court, the Obama administration argued there is no fundamental right to determine one’s own children’s education. On March 3, the Supreme Court decided against hearing the case, allowing a lower court’s extradition verdict to stand.

Now, for the tricky part. On March 4, the Obama administration granted “indefinite deferred status,” preventing deportation. Obviously, the Department of Homeland Security planned all along to let the family stay, having prepared in advance the special approval. How else would it have been announced so quickly?

The legal contradictions are obvious. Where can Obama’s Department of Homeland Security cite authority to overrule a federal court in a case that was won by Obama’s Department of Justice? Why is the federal government arguing both sides of this issue?

I suspect this is another test by the president, to push “fundamental change” via challenging “the constraints of the Constitution” — Obama’s own words. Constitutionally speaking, the more he goes unchecked, the worse off our nation will be.

Lastly, think carefully about this, because people who support the president’s actions now cannot protest when the next Republican president takes similar action.

Greg Paquet Smithfield

Copy the Story Link