Executive amnesty

There's some talk out there that Obama is planning a mass amnesty of millions of illegals.

What can the GOP do about this?

Perhaps very little.  The President has the power of pardon, and since these are lawbreakers, he has the power to grant them a pardon.  However, pardon is not done like this and it is such a massive and sweeping act.  There is no precedence for this, aside from the Civil War, and that may not have been allowed even then.   I'd have to check my history on that one.

Assuming that it is all legal, and has a precedent, the President may be able to go forward with this.  The Congress may have no recourse.  Perhaps impeachment, but on what grounds?  But they may find grounds elsewhere.

The plan for passivity and benevolence is not going to work with this guy.  Obama is going right after the GOP and so they will have to respond or be seen as ineffectual and weak.

But there's more to this.  Let's say that the amnesty goes down.  Does that entitle them to citizenship?  I think you have to find the letter of the law on that one.  For example, Obama could legalize millions of these people, but could the Congress and the Courts deny them citizenship?  This is important in terms of the vote.  The vote is what makes this political and why amnesty is being pursued, in my opinion.  They are not interested in the well being of the immigrants, but only in themselves and their political fortunes.

Update:

A search of the definitions for the following:

1. reprieve
2. pardon
3. amnesty

yields some interesting thoughts.

Number 1, reprieves involves the cancellation of a punishment.  It implies a legal process which has already occurred.
Number 2, pardon means to forgive an offense
Number 3, amnesty definitely means in reference to an act that has already occurred

In all of the US Constitution, pardon is mentioned only once.  I'm too lazy to double check, but I'd bet reprieves is likewise.  Amnesty is probably not even mentioned.

This could be an abuse of power if it is attempted.  It is an abuse of the legal system to apply the powers of pardon to so many people who haven't even been convicted of anything.  There has to be a process of arrest, conviction, and then pardon.

However, this has precedent, as the pardon of Nixon showed.  This obviated any further process against him and so this is a precedent that can hardly be ignored since it is so high profile.

However, Nixon did go through some legal processes up to that time and impeachment was definitely on the table.

I'd say that without the clear mention of amnesty, there can be no legal amnesty at all.  This may explain why legislative approval was sought first.  It implies that legislative approval is needed.  To single handedly go around this violates precedent and establishes a practice that has not been legally tested.

Interesting days ahead.

Update:

A possible way to stop this could be an injunction, which could be sought by a state, or any government agency or official---probably Congress.   Whether or not the court granted it would be a whole different question.

However, what remedy is available to the Congress should the President exceed his authority?  If the Supreme Court can't rule upon that, then what can it rule on in order to preserve the Constitution?