He's "Executing" The Laws All Right, Along With The Constitution

According to that outdated document crafted by dead white men, one of the principal responsibilities of the US president is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".  What should be done with a president who does not follow the law?

And that is not all. When President Obama announced his unilateral lawless delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate, it comepletely (sic) undermined every border security promise in the Schumer-Rubio bill. As I wrote at the time:

...Conservatives who do not trust Obama to enforce perfectly good law – whether it is No Child Left Behind, the War Powers Act, our current immigration laws, etc. – should not trust him to enforce whatever security measures are part of any immigration deal. There is no reason to believe that amnesty would not be every bit the train wreck that Obamacare already is.

Liberals complained of a mythical "imperial presidency" under President Bush.  The current president's actions are closer to l'etat c'est moi than President Bush ever could have imagined or wanted.  Why no outcry from the left?

To ask the question is pretty much to answer it.

Update:  More here:

The increasing lawlessness with which President Barack Obama has been acting in his second term is not going unnoticed.

In fact, in a strong rebuke last week to the unilateral actions being taken by the Obama administration, a federal appeals court came down hard on the administration’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission by ruling that delaying a decision on a proposed nuclear waste storage facility was in violation of federal law. In the majority opinion, the judges declared that the administration was “simply flouting the law,” and that President Obama “may not decline to follow a statute or prohibition simply because of policy objections.”