your thoughts. thanks for watching. here's "hannity." welcome to "hannity." this is a fox news alert. it is official, the president of the united states has announced his plans to go it alone on immigration and bypass congress in order to grant defactor executive amnesty for up to 5 million illegal immigrants in this country. the president revealed his plan, a three-part plan during the primetime address to the nation. here's what he said. >> first, we'll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings and speed the return of those who do cross over. second, i'll make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigran immigrants, graduates and

entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy. as so many business leaders have proposed. third, we'll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country. >> and coming up tonight senator jeff sessions, congresswoman michele bachmann, louie gohmert, but first to break down constitutional issues and there are many of them from the american center for justice, jay and peter johnson jr., immigration attorney michael wilds. before we get into the president's comments tonight, michael. did the president tonight act in a way that is lawless and unconstitutional based on his own words and his own standards? let's go to the videotape first. >> the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not

the case. for me to simply ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. i know some people want me to bypass congress and change the laws on my own. but that's not how -- that's not how our system works. the problem is is that you know, i'm the president of the united states, i'm not the emperor of the united states. >> michael, hear what he said, you know, the notion that i can just suspend deportation through executive order, that's just not the case. and the president says it's not appropriate role for me as president to do this. it's not how our system works. i have to execute laws as they are passed. so i ask the question, did the president act in a way tonight that was unlawful and unconstitutional based on his own words? >> sean, first, thanks for having me on. >> great to have you. >> you're gold. that trip to israel you took,

went to my heart. >> i appreciate that. >> i have to tell you, it's not you. i think that the dialogue has deteriorated significantly on immigration. >> i want to hear your thoughts on immigration. >> i'm going to tell you right now sdpl this is an important question. >> this president has not made law, he has exercised prosecutorial discretion by actions. you can't install the law for every single individual. you want to make sure you're going to deport criminals, kidnappers, murderers, and you're going to allow people -- >> you have not answered my question. i'm going to go back to it because it's too important. let me turn over to peter johnson jr., by the way you're a democrat. >> yes. >> even an esteemed colleague of yours george washington university law professor jonathan turley says we're at a tipping point. based on the president's own standards, is what he did tonight lawful or unlawful, unconstitutional? >> openly defiant of the united

states constitution. tonight the president of the united states says it's about who we are as a country. so nip looks at this presidency or this executive branch, who we are as a country is a country that doesn't value the constitution, that doesn't value the separation of powers, that says i can nullify any act of congress any time i want. and if you want to have a better law, pass one that's different and better than the law i'm enacting as the president of the united states. the president of the united states does not and should not and cannot enact laws. >> okay. >> eleven presidents have done this. >> that's not true. that is absolutely positively not true. but look i know those are the talking points -- i know the president mentioned. j.r., i'll let you handle it first. go ahead. >> that's just not correct. what michael's saying is incorrect. when they rely on president bush and president reagan, there was underlying legislation that served of the basis upon which there was executive order.

that's constitutional. what is not constitutional is providing a substantive right the president will do tomorrow when he signs the order when there is in fact no underlying law to support it. you'll see the law 1996 president reagan issued that order. people failing to recognize that that came to the united states prior to 1982. the president does not have the authority to do what he has now about to do tomorrow. and the second point that i think is really critical and peter was touching on this, this idea the president can just circumvent the united states congress, that's where the concern should be. no matter what your position is -- michael, i'm a grandson of an immigrant. so i'm sympathetic to legal immigration. the fact of the matter on the substantive issue of immigration, the president of the united states doesn't get to act like a king or a monarch and just determine by, you know, decree how we're going to run

our country under the laws that are existing. that's the law of congress. >> michael, you didn't address the president's own words. i want you to address he made the case stronger than i ever could that he doesn't have the authority to do this. you cannot ignore his own statements. there are 25 separate statements. we will be playing them through the course of the night tonight. that he says he doesn't have the legal authority to act this way but yet he did it. how should the american people interpret that? >> this president has deported over 2 million people -- >> not answering my question again. this is too important. you're a lawyer -- >> sean, give me a chance. put up people running fences behind me which is what usually what happens here. this president is not making law. and truthfully every president has the authority to issue executive orders. and it's congress's right to go make legislation based on -- bottom line is he is not creating new statuses and we're now living the illegal -- >> what do you mean he's not creating a new status?

>> gaining a w temporarily for three years. he's not going to give -- >> my new brother in the law but i think you're absolutely wrong on this, he's created a standard. he's created a new law. he's created a new ability in the presidency of the united states to wipe away 30, 40, 50 years of immigration laws in this country and say you haven't acted, i want this done. i'm doing this. and if you don't do it this is going to stand. >> sean -- >> one at a time. >> that's absolutely inappropriate. emotionally we all want the right thing. we want the ability for people to be happy in this country. >> -- not the role of the president to determine when there's congress that's in place. i don't think you can simply ignore congress, which is what's happening here. so why you morally may sympathize with what the president is trying to do, the way to do that would be get legislation through. which by the way the president had the ability to do for a

period of time where he had the house and senate and didn't do it. that was the president -- the choice he made. >> one at a time. >> -- this is an issue of constitutional law and that's the real issue. >> let me go to what the president's words are because i hear where you're going with this. the system's broken, i've waited long enough. that's the argument the president's been making now leading up to this. i don't care where the system is broken or not. i don't care if his policy's better or not. it has nothing to do undocumented immigrants, he admit wroek broke the law. the law has consequences. we have co-equal branches of government, separate powers -- >> not tonight. >> we are a nation of laws. right now the law does not allow engineered or sponsored by an american company without taking 12 years -- >> the issue is -- >> get the law changed. the president can't do it by

fiat. >> the law is more important than any particular political ideology or -- >> what about people? what about people? >> suffer for generations to come. >> michael -- you're making a completely emotional argument here not based on law. you're making an emotional argument here not based on law. when the president doesn't just get to go through emotions and pass a law, that's the role of congress. that's the problem here. the underlying -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> michael, michael, michael -- >> living here and making our beds. >> that's the emotional argument he's talking about. >> we don't have a law about making beds being a right of citizen in the united states. >> we currently have a law of the land. that law was passed by congress signed into law by the president of the united states. tonight, this president bypassed congress. listen, you're an attorney. i shouldn't have to tell you

this. separation of powers and co-equal branches of government. >> anyone had their shot at democrat and former mayor and immigration lawyer. let's tomorrow now give congress the microphone and the light's on them. let's see what they're going to do. executing within his authority. they can't find a law firm -- >> what law -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> what is the law? >> based upon laws passed by congress signed by the president. this is a law passed by the president, signed by the president, enforced by the president, dictated by the president. this is the president's law. that is not american law. and that's not -- >> let me go to jay. >> yeah. sean, here's the fundamental problem. michael is arguing and i'm sure his heart is sincere, an

emotional argument that we need to help people that are here that may have come here illegally, we want to help them. sympathy can be there. there's a question we have to ask, michael. you know this, you're a good lawyer. the question we have to ask is is there a constitutional basis upon which the president can issue an executive order under article 1 of the united states constitution, under article 2 -- and that's the separation of powers. what you're ignoring is there is no underlying law that the president -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> fix the law. don't have the president do it by fiat. >> i'll answer his question, immigration is a shared authority, constitutionally. and with the president it's a joint responsibility where the president executes the law -- >> presidents have tried this before. doesn't work out so well. >> -- this president may be late and may be politically astute at this time, but this president is now stepping up and is going to

fix a broken system. and we're all correct, gentlemen. congress really has the authority -- it's up to congress tomorrow morning. and let's all run down to washington and see what these people are going to do. they will not move. >> the problem is, michael, you've got it backwards. the president, peter, in 2009 and '10 had a democratic house -- >> and couldn't get it done. i agree. >> he didn't get it done, but he doesn't have the ability to do it this way. let me ask you a question, do you agree with jonathan turley that this is now bringing this country to a constitutional tipping point? is it that serious? >> i hope it does not. and i hope that the president's

this a fox news alert. in his primetime address to the nation earlier tonight emperor in chief, obama, he called out republican lawmakers and essentially blamed them for forcing him to take these executive actions on immigration. take a look. i ekvxkgj3@x lt" /ssr?wkg;e@áf8 failed, i have one answer, pass a bill. i want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution.

and the day i sign that bill into law, the actions i take will no longer be necessary. >> joining us now to tell us how the republican senators plan to fight back, alabama senator jeff sessions. >> good to be with you. >> how many bills house republicans pass that harry reid didn't take up in the last number of years? >> i think it was several hundred. >> several hundred. >> he blocked bill after bill after bill refusing to even bring them up. but what congress did do it was rejected explicitly more than one time the efforts president obama has opposed to create an amnesty here. make no mistake this is 5 million people being given amnesty that congress rejected, that the american people have rejected, that will pull down the wages of working americans, will make jobs harder for them to find, will create a system in the future that will invite more people to come unlawfully and

really include as one officer said a tidal wave of new illegality in the future. it's a dramatic unlawful act that will do great damage to america. >> you said it's endangering our entire constitutional order. can you explain? >> well it certainly is. it's so basic. we learned that in school. the president -- i used to serve in the executive branch of the united states government and enforce the laws, is compelled to enforce the laws of the united states. congress makes the laws. what the president did in this order is said i am not enforcing the laws that you have passed and indeed i'm going further. i'm going to give work permits, social security numbers to millions of people who congress said cannot work in america. it's really a breathtaking overreach of monumental proportions. >> yeah. i agree. as a matter of fact your colleague senator ted cruz he referred to alexander hamilton in federalist 69, a monarchy

said decrees dictates and rules through fiat power which is what the president's attempting. do you agree with that? >> yes, the president himself said i'm not an emperor. i can't do this a few months ago, and now he's done it. so he's acknowledged he did not have the power to do this. >> how do you think -- what is the best strategy -- because i understand there are competing ideas among republicans. how do you best deal with the president that by his own words said this is unlawful and unconstitutional? what do you think is the best way to fight back? >> sean, my best judgment is the congress has great powers, the greatest power is the power of the purse. we need to fund this government and not shut it down but actually fund it. but we do not have to fund actions by the executive branch that congress rejects, does not think is worthy of funding or indeed violates the very expressed will of congress. >> what about how rogers -- >> -- we should cut off funding for that may take a series of

months to work this through, maybe to next year when the republicans have the majority in the senate. but we need to start right now and call on our democratic colleagues to stand up to this overreach and defend the average working american. somebody needs to defend them for a change instead of business groups and activist groups. >> all right, senator, thank you. we appreciate you being with us tonight. joining us now to tell us how republicans in the house will fight back, minnesota congresswoman michele bachmann, texas congressman louie gohmert. your reaction and how do you think republicans are best able to fight back? >> well first of all, sean, when people are saying, oh, he's not kanging the law, he's not making the law. the law is that if you're illegally in this country, you are not allowed to work. the president has said, well, congress didn't act, i waited six years, so i'm going to go

ahead and do that. that is outrageous. that is such an offense to the constitution. and by the way, sean, it is so offensive to the african-americans and hispan hispanic-american who is have enormously high unemployment rate. this president has come in and said, you know what, for political gain i am going to give 5 million people the authority to work here even though that's illegal. i'm going to do it. and that's going to leave 5 million people out in the cold. now, i understand he's tied with president carter with over 92 million americans eligible to work that have given up working. he's tied with carter. nobody wants to be tied with carter. this will put him way up at another level. but i also want to point out he quoted exodus 22:1 here that if you just go over to the next column, maybe he hasn't seen these verses, sean. you must not spread a false report. do not join the wicked to be a

malicious witness. you must not follow a crowd in wrongdoing. do not testify in a lawsuit and go along with a crowd to prevert justice, do not show favoritism to a poor person in this lawsuit. this man is showing favoritism and he's lying about congress. and i've seen this in another politician i went up against who would call you everything in the book and then say we're going to be gentlemen, we're not going to talk bad about each other and try to keep you from defending yourself. >> congresswoman, he did quote george bush. he did quote scripture. he did talk about this young woman, a street he's going to kick out and he did blame congress. the only thing he didn't say in his speech tonight is that the islamic state is not islamic. but hal rogers says there might be issues in terms of the use of the power of the purse. is that a problem in dealing with this in terms of republicans? >> well, you know, when i was watching this speech tonight,

sean, i felt like i was watching jonathan gruber, to be honest with you. because all i heard was contempt for the american people as though he thought we were so stupid that somehow he could say that his illegal actions were legal and we would all turn over and roll over and believe it. it's not true. senator jeff sessions is exactly right. congress has a responsibility to uphold the laws of the land as well. and we can defund this president's illegal amnesty. that's what we must do. we can't do it alone. so it's a very quick three-step plan that your viewers need to help us with. we can't do it alone. we need your viewers. congress will be back december 1st through december 11th. this will be decided in that period of time. we need to have your viewers melt the phone lines. congress isn't here. they're gone from washington tonight. but from december 1st to the 11th we need them to melt the phone lines and say defund amnesty. we need them to go to senators

and congressmen's office. i'm calling on your viewers to come to d.c. on wednesday december 3rd at high noon on the west steps of the capitol. we need to have a rally. and we need to go visit our senators and visit our congressmen because nothing frightens a congressman like the whites of his constituents eyes. >> that's pretty funny. >> we are not going to do this with our constitution. so i'm asking your viewers to join us. wednesday december 3rd at high noon on the west steps of the capitol. come, rally and then visit your senator and go visit your congressman. and you can make the difference and we can get this thing defunded. we can do this but we need the viewers to come and help us. >> thank you both for being with us. congresswoman, thank you. >> majority of americans want the border fixed, and we passed a bill to do that in july. he needs to take that bill up. >> that's a good point.

you did pass that secure the borders. even if you did pass it he wouldn't sign it any way. it's interesting in terms of his comments tonight. we'll continue on the constitutionality, the legality of the president's actions tonight. also coming up, you will only see this video right here on police, protesters clashing in ferguson. of course ahead of the grand "hannity" producers were there firsthand to witness this. fox's own david webb is now standing live outside the police station to explain exactly what went down. but first tonight -- >> many of them i've stolen ideas from liberally. people ranging from robert gordon to austin ghoulsby, john gruber. >> one of the men bragging about stealing ideas from, here to try and defend his old boss. that's coming up next straight ahead.

the notion i can suspend -- that's just not the case. for me to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. i know some people want me to bypass congress and change the laws on my own. but that's not how -- that's not how our system works. the problem is that, you know, i'm the president of the united states. i'm not the emperor of the united states. my job is to execute laws that are passed. if in fact i could solve all these problems without passing laws in congress, then i would do so. but we're also a nation of laws. i cannot ignore those laws any more than i can ignore, you know, any of the other laws on the books. what i've said in the past remains true. which is until congress passes a new law, then i am constrained

in terms of what i'm able to do. the biggest problem that we're facing right now had to do with george bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through congress at all. and that's what i intend to reverse when i'm president of the united states of america. i do have an obligation to make sure that i'm following some of the rules. i can't simply ignore laws that are out there. anybody that tells you it's going to be easy or i can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works. until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we're going to be continue to be bound by the law. >> here now former economic3uvúa ,=p

just heard the president all those times saying he doesn't have the legal authority and it's not constitutional to do what he did tonight. no, very clear. let's not argue about words. he said it over and over and over again. what does that say to you about your friend? he won't even respect the law and the constitution as he interprets it. >> well, a, i would disagree a little on the was he referring to a postponement changing the enforcement goals which he announced tonight. >> i'm enjoying watching you squirm here. >> i have in my house, sean, a football that says "hannity". >> that's correct. >> and it says on that football, to auston, a great american. >> it's a forgery. >> i'm going to put it on the screen and say did you intend to say that when you said it the first time?

>> listen, i think you're a great american. my question is too pertinent. the constitution is too important. the president recognized it was unlawful and unconstitutional but in spite of -- >> the law grants the authority to the administration to decide on enforcement priorities. >> it is illegal to work in this country if you are not here legally. it is illegal. he just changed that law, de facto -- >> you just added -- you're like de facto. >> he changed the law. >> we know the president is allow today and has -- presidents have in the past said we're going to deport x before y. we're going to focus on -- >> that's prosecutorial discretion. that's very different.

prosecutorial discretion versus rewriting laws is different. he wanted congress to go along with the dream act. congress didn't agree with him. they did not pass the law. he says you're either going to pass it or i'm going to act unilaterally, which he said is unconstitutional. to me it's all about the law. jonathan turley, you respect him, right? >> i do respect him. >> a liberal democrat. >> he's not a liberal ghkt. >> liberal democrat who agrees with the president on most issues has even said this president is now bringing us to a tipping point because he will not follow the constitution. >> i was going to ask you if you object to this you must have objected to the first round when they talked about the dream act kids. and they changed the enforcement goals. >> yes. >> the administration has the right to say we have $18 billion of enforcement budget we spend on immigration, which is more

than all the rest of the federal government's legal law enforcement combined. that's not enough to find everyone. they have to set priorities and they have to set priorities. if he's nullifying the law -- >> he's nullifying the law. let me give you one example. here's one. illegal immigrants are not allowed to work in this country. number one, now guess what, he has decided unilaterally you're going to be able to stay and work. and he's rewarding them for breaking the law. that sends a message to other people. >> you're making a point about if you reward somebody will it encourage more illegal behavior. >> do you know what this is doing to my blood pressure? you are driving it through the roof. glad i make him happy. >> here's what i'm saying. if the president said -- when i listen to his speech, it sounded like the lawyers had been pretty careful to say we're changing --

we're going to enforce these guys first. they even had the phrase something like we're going to deport felons before -- >> the 5 million people will get to stay. he's done it. he did this unilaterally against what his own definition of legality and constitutionality are. i know i'm not going to convince you, but this is beyond -- i've said this about obama many, many time, this may rank as the most disgraceful day -- that is saying a lot. disgraceful he went against his own belief system because he couldn't get it done at the ballot box and he couldn't get it done legislatively. >> i understand that argument. when you said many times this is the worst thing he's ever done, you mean it in the sense where people say this is the worst flood in a hundred years but they say that every year. >> this is the most disgraceful day the president of the united

states has sworn under oath has gone against his own definition of legality and constitutionality. that is beyond the pale even for him. >> i don't feel that this is -- >> i got to roll. good to see you. give me my football back. >> i'm bringing that football in to prove it. >> coming up, our "hannity" crew caught on tape law enforcement clashing with protesters in ferguson outside the police department. david webb is standing there live on the ground in missouri. he's going to give us late breaking details. and later mark furhman will be here to explain how the police need to prepare for what might be coming. that and incredible question of the day and more on the president's speech straight ahead.

a fox news alert. the grand jury decision regarding the shooting death of michael brown has yet to be handed down, but ferguson, missouri is already in an

uproar. last night our cameras captured this violent clash between protesters and law enforcement officials right outside the local police station. and during the altercation many demonstrators were hurling derogatory chants -- arrested by cops dressed in full riot gear. here with the very latest he was there and now an extremely tense situation on the ground in ferguson is fox news friend david webb. that was last night and there's even action building for tonight. tell us what happened last night. let's start there. >> reporter: last night, sean, you had about 40 protesters who came out here and as you said they're blocking the streets, impeding traffic, something they're also doing tonight. the police came out, they talked to them and then they gave them a chance. when that didn't shut down they came out and they went in and took down five people according to reports and arrested them. same thing going on tonight. they were stopping traffic, they stopped a bus, a number of cars and trucks and pickup trucks

going by blocking both lanes of travel. >> now, there is a bounty that has been put out by a group on officer darren wilson's head. why have they not arrested the people responsible for putting that out? >> reporter: those are good questions being asked, sean, by many people in the community. an older lady i spoke to yesterday when we were going along the original protest area on west florisan said something similar, those who come in, those who put these bounties out, those who cause trouble and riot and break things, that frankly they need to be dealt with by the police. the residents by the way are tired of this, many of them. many have said they simply want to go back to their normal everyday lives. the store owners, the people that have to run businesses. one young man i spoke with, you had him on last night or a clip of it, he's lost 80% of his business. >> yeah. you know, it's funny because i did speak with a local business guy. and, you know, he has to board

up his place. and he's not getting the regular business. there's a target list out of literally almost a hundred places that they want to target when in fact this decision comes down. david, i keep hearing and we keep hearing about leaks from the grand jury that -- and i know the media's portrayed this white officer, black unarmed teen that there are black eyewitnesses, as many as six to eight, that have corroborated darren wilson's story. that being that michael brown went for his gun officer was in the car. and there was a struggle for that gun. and then that he charged the police officer, which would then result in justifiable use of force. what are you hearing on the ground specifically regarding that? >>. >> reporter: we haven't heard much otherwise on that, sean. i've checked with a number of sources here in the st. louis area. the fact is they've actually kept this grand jury process fairly what it should be, secretive. the prosecutor pretty much a straight shooter as i've talked

to even some -- >> my sources have been very clear in fact those witnesses exist. we'll find out in the days to come. so is there a potential here, david -- you're on the ground -- again, there are two very diametrically opposed stories, is there a potential that a guy that maybe was attempting to kill a police officer had three white house representatives show up at his funeral? is that a possibility? one of the possible outcomes here? >> reporter: yeah, that is a possibility as well as the fact that the president, as you know, sean, told the activists and the protesters to stay the course which just injekts more of that legitimacy to those that come from the outside. and more and more we see people coming through here and as i talk to them throughout the day they don't want to go on camera. i ask if they're from ferguson, they're not. it's fine you have your right to protest anywhere in america, but

the agitators are what people of ferguson want gone. >> stay right there. as the world awaits this grand jury decision, how should local law enforcement respond to violence? we'll check in with mark furhman and also on the president's speech, that's part of our question of the day. you get to weigh in straight ahead. [

no matter what the grand jury decides i do not want my son's death to be in vein. i want to lead to change. positive change. change that makes the st. louis region better for everyone. here now with reaction former lapd detective mark furhman,

david webb still on the ground for us in ferguson tonight. mark, we see the agitators, they have training sessions. they have specific target lists the decision they want. how do police prepare for that? i'm sure they don't want the confrontations. what do they do? >> well, first thing is that you can't deviate from what ferguson did before. they have to have police in riot gear and officer safety gear and have to be prepared for what they're threatening to do to the police, rocks, bottles, firearms, they have prepared for that. show of force is the first line that deters violence when you have a crowd that isn't equipped. when they look at through the police that are. sometimes, that is a deterrent.

>> david, let me ask you this. you're on the ground there. the president weighed in on this. eric holder weighed in multiple times this week. my question is that they weighed in without hearing any evidence in this case. didn't they create in the minds of people that a specific decision would be reached here? if that doesn't occur, aren't they responsible for creating expectation and whatever violence may happen as a result? >> yes. when you talk about the pulpit, they do have a megaphone that magnifies any situation. if the evidence is released as the prosecutor said, as darren wilson is not indicted it will be there for all to see. leaks aside this process should

matter. and as mark talks about, what the police have to do to process also has to play out. and that is better for everyone whether you're on one side or another. >> mark, the president weighed in with no information the attorney has done so, 81 times. the president is telling him to stay the course. >> stay the course, how long will it take to stay the course? >> it means whoever is stating their view of this case, which michael brown is the victim, not the suspect means keep pressure up and keep the sound, the voice of the people up. it's so misplaced what the government did. they got involved in a state issue without asking if they could.

>> that is a question from both of you. a yes or no answer. if something happens, does the president and eric holder bear cu culpability? >> absolutely. >> yes. they do. absolutely. >> we'll continue to follow. david, i know it's cold out there. thank you for being with us thank you. coming up we heard the president tonight as part of a question of the day. we'll explain coming up next.

time for the question of the day. do you believe the president is a hypocrite on amnesty? he said i can't just suspend deportation through executive order. he said it won't conform with my appropriate role of president. and went on to say that is not how the system works my job is to execute laws that are passed. yeah, you're a hypocrite. we want to hear from you. head over to facebook. tell us what you think. thanks for being with

>> it is friday november 21st. a fox news alert. the president's power play. >> the same actions taken by democratic and republican presidents before me. >> millions of illegals now allowed to stay in the u.s. what it means for the new congress and you the american people. >> with all eyes on immigration, maybe the administration thought no one would notice? five more prisoners released from gitmo. what we just learned about them. >> thanks but no thanks.