So while the President and his staff is trusting in the American people to forget what he said on immigration reform and executive orders, most of America clearly hasn't. We know that the President is acting beyond just proprietorial discretion, he's acting to amnesty a group of people that can't even really be defined due to identity theft. So we really have no idea how much money or how many people really will be affected by these decisions.
To counter this, of course, Congress has been told it must act. Does it?
The executive is supposed to be responsible for executing the laws. However, what happens when it refuses to do so? Congress can use the power of the purse and confirmations - but that's only part of the solution.
The Constitution derives it's power from a High Power, granted through the States to the Federal government. So what I suggest is that the State act in executive manner to refute the President. As they are doing in court right now - they have right to execute the laws on the books as Congress has made them clear to be. I feel that the States have standing in this case against an Executive federal branch not following through on it's oath of office.
If it must - states should refuse to also implement any other Federal directive, call it using proprietorial discretion if you will.
