President Obama has announced, via Facebook and other outlets, that he is going to issue an executive order that will, if sources are correct, shield at least five million illegal immigrants from law enforcement. The President, and others, are floating several justifications for the action.

In his own video, Obama claims he is going to “fix our broken immigration system.” Why is it broken? Because “Washington has allowed the problem to fester.” (Is President Obama still pretending to be an outsider?) His action will “make the system work better.” Gwen Ifill, on PBS NewsHour, said the “President has come up with a workaround” that will bypass Congress to deal with immigration. Frank Sharry, from America’s Voice, in the same interview with Ifill, said the President has legal authority to “fix the system.”

All of this language feels so innocent and well-intentioned. Who can challenge such motivations, especially when the topic is immigration? There is little doubt we have a serious problem, perhaps even to the point of saying the immigration system is “broken.”

But Congress is not merely a speed-bump along the President’s parade route. It is the fountain of law, the mouthpiece of the people, and the arbiter of the public’s opinion. Laws and governmental systems cannot be unilaterally fixed, regardless of the purity and ardor that cloak such actions. Problems that fester are not an excuse to usurp power, but they are a consequence of our form of government.

For too many of us, both liberal and conservative, government is a solution in search of a problem. In this instance, the problem is immigration, but it could just as easily could be (and soon will be) the debt ceiling, budget, or energy policy. The problem should not define the scope of government’s powers, but government’s powers should define the problems government can or cannot manage.

There is no shortage of political issues that our government, as presently constructed, is unable to fix. That does not mean that the construction is faulty. It means our system is designed to make action hard, particularly when such actions are comprehensive and divisive. Why? We have a limited government that restricts all of the major participants. Unless those actors can arrive at some agreeable conclusion, nothing happens.

When we care deeply about an issue, we are tempted to rationalize that the system should be sacrificed, or fixed, or “worked-around” so that we might achieve our desired outcomes. Many might wish for a radically restructured tax code, rational budgets, and massive educational reform, but should they encourage a favored President to simply “do” these things in the face of a recalcitrant Congress?Empowering a President to achieve pet goals will, necessarily, empower future Presidents to achieve other goals, some of which might be dangerous, destructive, or tyrannical.

For those who want the President to refuse enforcement of immigration laws, how would they respond if a future President refused to enforce laws against hate crimes, abortion protestors, or civil rights abuses? What if a future, white President said, “As of now, we have decided that the Department of Justice does not have the adequate resources to monitor reported threats of racially based intimidation in the context of voting in the United States?” Of course it sounds absurd, but allowing the President such broad discretion over enforcement could cut in many, many different directions, and ALL of them would undermine the constitutional duty of enforcement which is at the heart of the President’s job.

By limiting government’s power, and constructing it so that our branches have to coordinate major actions, our Founders designed a system that protects our basic freedoms, rights, and liberties. This is insured not through government’s action, but by making those actions difficult and cumbersome. This trade-off is the soul of our constitutional republic. Surely the republic will survive if President Obama issues his executive order, but every American should shudder at the possibilities for our future.