IGNORING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS OF RULE BY LAW

Obama has been deciding what laws he wants to enforce and what ones he chooses not to enforce.  This may give him a lot of influence over policy now, but what happens in the future when future presidents decide to do this?  America will no longer be ruled by law (and certainly Congress) but by a "dictatorial" president.  And would Democrats want a Republican president doing this?

Mickey Kaus who lost in a Democrat Senate Primary in California a few years ago writes that Obama may just as easily ignore the "E-verify" clause in the new immigration bill the Senate is considering.

Obama has unilaterally decided to suspend Obamacare’s mandate for employers after receiving business complaints;Don’t you think he’ll also decide to suspend the Senate Gang of 8′s mandate that employers use “E-Verify” (to screen new employees for legal status) when he receives similar business complaints?

And Mario Loyola at the National Review writes about Obama's disregard for enforcing laws he does not like from a more theoretical perspective.

During the presidency of Barack Obama, we’ve learned something about our Constitution that we did not know: The president can simply refuse to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like. Not as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, mind you, but in general, as to whole categories of people.

First it was DOMA, in a sop to the gay lobby. Then it was the immigration laws, which the president has decided not to enforce against young illegal immigrants. Now it’s the crucial employer-insurance mandate in Obamacare, which is “suspended” for a year, because the president feels like it. I say “crucial” because, absent the employer mandate, the official estimate of how much Obamacare is going to cost, and how it’s going to affect the number of uninsured, is no longer valid