Depends on what you mean by “make,” says Barack the Magnificent.
The defenders of the president hold that he has a wide discretion in how to enforce the law. They are correct, but that does not settle the question. There must be a point at which the president exercises too much discretion. Otherwise we make nonsense out of the president’s constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This expression must mean that the president is to try to be faithful to what the law intends, not to whatever he happens to think is for the best.
From Catholic Vote, which further observes:
Liberals ought to be as concerned about this as conservatives are. They should consider the precedent that it sets, and how it might be used by a future president whose policy preferences are very different from President Obama’s. If the president’s immigration order is to stand, then what will stop, say, a Republican president from issuing an executive order deferring enforcement of whatever provisions of the health care law he or she thinks are too burdensome? It would be the exact same thing.
Food for thought here, a sort of Kaopectate of the mind.