Evidence mounts that President Obama is reacting with greater defiance and lawlessness despite Americans' repudiation of his agenda in the November elections, and the word is that Republican leaders in Congress are relaxing their resistance.

Isn't it axiomatic that if you reward bad behavior you'll get more of it and that if you punish it you'll deter it? Then why would certain Republicans choose to reward behavior they are on record condemning?

I'm talking about not the president's making policy choices we disagree with but which he has constitutional authority to implement. Increasingly, he has become a law unto himself, rewriting substantive provisions of laws Congress not only opposes but has expressly rejected.

His recent executive actions on immigration and health care are breathtaking in their scope and unprecedented in their overt illegality.

Why would Obama stop? He certainly has no respect for the United States Constitution, so there is no chance he will rein himself in. Nor will he listen to dissenting voices. As the public's disapproval of his policies and behavior increases, his self-imposed isolation bubble hardens. One wonders whether he listens to anyone outside of his own narcissistic voice, White House consigliore Valerie Jarrett and first lady Michelle Obama.

Even The Washington Post's editorial board has come down squarely against Obama's action on immigration, in its editorial titled "President Obama's unilateral action on immigration has no precedent."

The writers dispute the White House's claim that Obama's unilateral action to legalize the presence of millions of immigrants is consistent with actions of previous presidents, saying, "In fact, it is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama's order is unprecedented."

In the first place, there is no small deception in the White House's comparing of Obama's order to that of President George H.W. Bush's 1990 order because it affected about the same percentage of immigrants (1.5 million of the 3.5 million immigrants at the time). The Post says, "The actual number affected by the 1990 order was clearly a fraction -- perhaps a couple of hundred thousand people, at most -- of the 1.5 million that Obama administration officials have cited."

In addition, Bush's action was consistent with legislation recently and subsequently enacted by Congress, whereas "Obama's move flies in the face of congressional intent -- no matter how indefensible that intent looks."

The Post wrongly castigates Republicans for failing to pass an immigration reform bill but admits, "Republicans' failure to address immigration ... does not justify Mr. Obama's massive unilateral act."

The Post doesn't mention certain other hugely damning facts. President Obama's order isn't just an exercise of "prosecutorial discretion." His order won't just stop deportations; it will grant tentative status and work permits to illegal immigrants, as if he has the power to pass positive law without congressional approval and in defiance of Congress' express wishes.

If a mere discretionary act were all that is involved, why would Obama be planning for an amnesty processing facility with 1,000 new immigration agents in northern Virginia, as incoming Senate Budget Committee Chairman Jeff Sessions just discovered and reported?

Sessions said in a statement that this facility will "quickly approve applications for the President's illegal amnesty, which will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security, and Medicare to illegal immigrants -- all benefits rejected by Congress. This action will mean that American workers, their sons, their daughters, their parents, will now have to compete directly for jobs, wages, and benefits with millions of illegal immigrants."

In the meantime, health care policy expert Betsy McCaughey reports that among the 3,415 federal regulations the Obama administration quietly imposed immediately before Thanksgiving, Obama has unilaterally made significant changes to the Affordable Care Act again. He is redefining what health plans will be deemed "adequate" for large employers under the law, and he's "asking" insurers to subsidize new benefits and warning that if they were to refuse, they might be forced to do so.

President Obama acts lawlessly so often and so egregiously that it seems some have grown numb to it. Sen. Sessions, to his great credit, is strongly recommending that Congress block federal dollars to implement his executive amnesty action. We need similar resistance on his many Obamacare overreaches.

Yet we hear the Republican leadership isn't on board with plans to actively challenge Obama. The Daily Caller is reporting, "House Speaker John Boehner will ask Rep. Nancy Pelosi to help him overcome 'snowballing' GOP opposition to the GOP leadership's draft 2015 government budget bill." Also, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has indicated that Boehner's aides have asked him to deliver Democratic votes to ensure passage of the amnesty-funding bill.

I don't know yet whether or to what extent these reports are true, but if there is a smidgen of truth to them, people must rise up in one voice against these ongoing outrages. Obama's lawlessness has to be stopped, and we won't stop it if the opposition party refuses to fight back and its leaders get in bed with Obama's Democratic enablers.