shutterstock_245503624.jpg

By Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk

President Obama and House Republicans are on a collision course, again. This time, it's over a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The House passed the bill, but with a provision that defunds President Obama's so-called "amnesty" program for undocumented immigrants.

Obama has said he won't sign the bill; neither side appears ready to budge. The possible result: a shutdown - or slowdown, really - at the Department of Homeland Security.

Who wins and who loses in another shutdown? RedBlueAmerica columnists Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk debate.

JOEL MATHIS

Here's the good news: In the event of a Homeland Security shutdown, there will be no Homeland Security shutdown.

It's true. Government never entirely turns out the lights - "essential" employees are expected to stay on the job, even if they're unable to collect a paycheck for the duration.

Well, in the Department of Homeland Security, there are precious few employees who aren't essential. We're going to let the borders go unguarded? The Coast Guard is going to stop protecting our shores? Airline traffic is going to halt so that security screeners can go home?

Not a chance on earth.

So President Obama has nothing to lose by holding fast to a veto threat. And congressional Republicans don't sacrifice that much - they just irritate thousands of Americans whose job is to keep us safe, but those Americans are government employees, and Republicans don't like them much anyway. It's a recipe for perpetual deadlock.

At least it's a hilarious deadlock.

Why? Because when Democrats held the White House and Senate, Republicans had just enough members - or, in some cases, a wise-enough command of procedure - to prevent much of consequence from happening. America's immigration laws could've and should've been overhauled during those years, but the GOP had just one mission during that time: To keep President Obama from getting any political victories. To a remarkable extent, Republican succeeded.

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and now the shoe is on the goose's other foot. Pick your metaphor, but it's always funny when somebody finds out that what goes around comes around. It's frustrating when a determined minority keeps the majority from governing effectively, isn't it?

What's that leave us with, then? Posturing and gridlock. You can't be too cynical for American politics. The shutdown that isn't a shutdown is just the latest proof.

BEN BOYCHUK

The obvious split between Congress and President Obama concerns a disagreement over immigration policy. But this isn't just another stupid partisan mud wrestling match. In reality, the "shutdown" stare down is really a disagreement over the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers.

You wouldn't know it from the media coverage, such as it is. A CNN/ORC International poll this week found that 53 percent of U.S. adults would blame Republicans if Congress refuses to fund the Homeland Security department before the end of the month.

So what? Memories are short. Republicans in 2013 supposedly ensured their destruction in the 2014 midterms when they forced a shutdown over Obamacare. Somehow, the GOP managed to rout the Democrats anyway.

Forget the Beltway finger pointing and focus on the issue at hand: Congress makes the laws and the president enforces them.

President Obama in 2012 and again last year invoked his "prosecutorial discretion" to exempt millions of people from deportation.

Past presidents have acted similarly, usually in the midst of humanitarian crises, but never to the extent Obama has. This is clearly a case of executive overreach. The president has discretion, but he cannot ignore the law.

A federal district court judge in Texas on Tuesday may have given Republicans an out when he temporarily blocked the president's executive action.

But deferring to the courts does not resolve the underlying constitutional crisis. Congress is a coequal branch of government. It doesn't need a court's approval to assert its constitutional prerogatives.

At least a few Republicans understand this.

"The president has acted unconstitutionally, and it is the president - not Congress - who must back down," Sen. Pete Sessions, R-Alabama, said Tuesday. "We cannot and must not establish the precedent that we will fund illegal actions on the hope that another branch of government will intervene and strike down that illegal action at some later point."

Exactly. Congress is not a parliament and the president is not a king. President Obama has long labored under the misapprehension that Congress exists to rubberstamp his agenda. Let a DHS shutdown remind him that it is not so.

Ben Boychuk (bboychukcity-journal.org) is associate editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. Joel Mathis (joelmmathisgmail.com) is associate editor for Philadelphia Magazine. Visit them on Facebook: www.facebook.com/benandjoel.