During her testimony on the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that she, President Barack Obama and other political officials at the top of this administration have the authority to decide which laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore.

Napolitano made the declaration in an exchange with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) when he was questioning her on how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have alleged that political officials in the Obama administration, including her, have blocked them from enforcing the law.

Sessions noted that ICE agents’ union president Chris Crane had testified on Monday “that agents are prohibited from enforcing the law and, indeed, the ICE officers have filed a lawsuit [to that effect].”

In her response to those remarks from Sessions, Napolitano said she believes she and other political officials have the authority to tell law enforcement agents which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.

“There are tensions with union leadership, unfortunately, but here’s what I expect as a former federal prosecutor and attorney general, and that is that law enforcement agents will enforce the law in accord with the guidance they’re given from their superiors,” Napolitano said.

Sessions was not pleased with Napolitano’s response, so he followed up by asking: ““Well, what Mr. Crane testified to was that there are law provisions that say an agent shall do this, that and the other, and that the policies set by their political supervisors refuse to allow them to do what the law plainly requires. You are not entitled to set policies, are you, that violate the mandates of congressional law?”

Napolitano answered that question by saying she “disagree[s] with almost everything” Sessions has said, “but we’ll just have to respectfully disagree with each other.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...-more-authority

Grrrrrrr!

SUBS!

Er, isn't this what dictators do????? Tyrants????? Etc. etc.????

If we had a sober speaker with a backbone, he would go to the house floor and make a speach about not enforceing American laws is an impeachable offense and then start an investigation. To remove some people.

Quote: nerd wrote in post #5

---

If we had a sober speaker with a backbone, he would go to the house floor and make a speach about not enforceing American laws is an impeachable offense and then start an investigation. To remove some people.

---

And, this is exactly why we are NOT a democracy, and are instead a constitutional republic. Because, elected and appointed public servants should not be able to decide what laws they want to enforce, based on some supposed consensus, but are obligated to follow the laws as written, unless clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, this regime ignores that.

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #7

---

And, this is exactly why we are NOT a democracy, and are instead a constitutional republic. Because, elected and appointed public servants should not be able to decide what laws they want to enforce, based on some supposed consensus, but are obligated to follow the laws as written, unless clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, this regime ignores that.

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #7

---

And, this is exactly why we are NOT a democracy, and are instead a constitutional republic. Because, elected and appointed public servants should not be able to decide what laws they want to enforce, based on some supposed consensus, but are obligated to follow the laws as written, unless clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, this regime ignores that.

---

Yes, and the house leadership has walked away from its oversight roles. The current Rubio amnesty bill goes further in letting government employees decide what laws they approve of.

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #9

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #7

---

And, this is exactly why we are NOT a democracy, and are instead a constitutional republic. Because, elected and appointed public servants should not be able to decide what laws they want to enforce, based on some supposed consensus, but are obligated to follow the laws as written, unless clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, this regime ignores that.

---

Yes, and the house leadership has walked away from its oversight roles. The current Rubio amnesty bill goes further in letting government employees decide what laws they approve of.

---

If the law can be crafted into a monster that serves the needs of the State, how does the average citizen adhere to the rule of law when it it is used against the rights of the citizen?

They can't.

---

BIG SIS IS "POWER HAPPY" AND SHE NEEDS TO GO !!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote: W-Girl wrote in post #12

---

BIG SIS IS "POWER HAPPY" AND SHE NEEDS TO GO !!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #13

---

Quote: W-Girl wrote in post #12

---

BIG SIS IS "POWER HAPPY" AND SHE NEEDS TO GO !!!!!!!!!!!!

---

True, true, true, now if we only had a republican majority in the house and a conservative leadership.

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #13

---

Quote: W-Girl wrote in post #12

---

BIG SIS IS "POWER HAPPY" AND SHE NEEDS TO GO !!!!!!!!!!!!

---

True, true, true, now if we only had a republican majority in the house and a conservative leadership.

---