PDA

View Full Version : Multistate coalition sues over immigration order




Dianne
12-03-2014, 04:54 PM
Since boehner and mcconnell sleep with the dog, and have earned the bastard's fleas ... this may be the only thing that saves the future of our kids as Americans. If your state is not on this list, work to get it on the list !!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141203/us--immigration-texas-0e6478e753.html

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas is leading a 17-state coalition in suing over the Obama administration's recently announced executive actions on immigration.

Many top Republicans have denounced President Barack Obama's unilateral move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation.

But Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott took it a step further Wednesday, filing a lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Texas. Texas is joined by 16 other, mostly southern and Midwestern states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana.

Under Obama's order, announced Nov. 20, protection from deportation and the right to work will be extended to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.

Abbott argued Wednesday that Obama's action "tramples" portions of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will "exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education."

Wednesday's announcement marks the 31st time the attorney general in this fiercely conservative state has brought action against the federal government since Obama took office in 2009. The only other high-profile lawsuit against the immigration action has come on behalf of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

House Majority Leader John Boehner told lawmakers this week that the GOP-led House may vote to undo Obama's executive action, but the move would be mostly symbolic, as Obama would certainly veto such legislation and the Democratic-led Senate would go for it, either.

Potential 2016 presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who leaves office in January, also spoke out against the executive order earlier Wednesday, saying it could trigger a new flood of people pouring across the Texas-Mexico border. Perry and Abbott also have said the order will promote a culture of lawlessness.

Perry said at a news conference that Obama's 2012 executive order delaying the deportation of children brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents triggered an unprecedented wave of unaccompanied minors and families, mostly from Central America, crossing into the U.S. this summer.

"In effect, his action placed a neon sign on our border, assuring people that they could ignore the law of the United States," said Perry, who has deployed up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border.

The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Zippyjuan
12-03-2014, 08:25 PM
"Take Care Clause"? More info on it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/12/03/at-center-of-immigration-suit-a-clause-with-funny-name/


Texas and 16 other states filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging President Barack Obama ’s executive action on immigration.

In announcing the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said Mr. Obama’s move, which gives millions of illegal immigrants the chance to win a reprieve from possible deportation and to gain work permits, “tramples the U.S. Constitution’s Take Care Clause and federal law.”

Take Care Clause? Less a friendly send-off than a stern admonition, the clause takes its name from Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which lists some of the duties of the president. It says, in part, “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

But how faithfully? Neither the Supreme Court nor the lower federal courts have squarely addressed the bounds of the Take Care Clause, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel noted in a memo blessing the legality of Mr. Obama’s immigration plan.

Mr. Obama announced after the midterm elections last month that he would bypass Congress to implement a series of changes to immigration policy. A number of Republican lawmakers in states around the country have claimed that the president was illegally rewriting immigration law without approval from Congress and in violation of the Constitution.

The lawsuit is a line-drawing exercise. Where do the powers of Congress and the powers of the president begin and end?

“On the one hand, the Constitution obligates the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” wrote Zachary Price, a visiting professor at U.C. Hastings College of Law, in a law review article this year on enforcement discretion. “On the other hand, the very separation of executive and legislative powers under our constitutional scheme…implies that the President is more than a congressional handmaiden.”

The article from the Constitution (Article 2- Section 3):

Section 3: Presidential responsibilities

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

devil21
12-04-2014, 09:06 PM
According to WND, Obama never actually signed an Executive Order. Rather, it was a "memo".

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/



The White House appears to have engaged in administrative sleight of hand, changing U.S. immigration law not by executive order but by a memorandum “exercising prosecutorial discretion” Johnson signed the day of Obama’s Nov. 20 nationwide address that so far has not been filed in the Federal Register.

Tom Fitton, president of Washington-based watchdog institution Judicial Watch, told WND in an interview the legal status of Johnson’s memo is a serious constitutional question that deserves to be adjudicated.

“The entire implementing authority involves a memorandum published by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that changes the immigration law, directing federal money to be spent that has not been appropriated by Congress,” he said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/#LDvkxRr0thK4gsez.99

Zippyjuan
12-04-2014, 09:30 PM
I rarely do but must agree with WND on this one (they still say Obama is from Kenya). There is no immigration executive order in the official listing of such orders: https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders/barack-obama/2014 A search for text of the order comes up empty.

In the transcript of his speech on it- he does not say he has signed an executive order on it either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html


Now here is the thing. We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve with been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.


Now let’s be clear about what it isn’t. This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive. Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.

Nor is it described as a law or rule but a "deal".

CPUd
12-04-2014, 09:33 PM
This was known the day it happened. The press was still calling it "executive order" in the titles/headlines, but no mention of it in the copy.

devil21
12-05-2014, 02:57 AM
According to WND, Obama never actually signed an Executive Order. Rather, it was a "memo".

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/

Creating "regulations" instead of law but acting as if it's law and enforceable as if it were law. Smoke and mirrors from the highest elected office.


“The entire implementing authority involves a memorandum published by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that changes the immigration law, directing federal money to be spent that has not been appropriated by Congress,” he said.

An example of how Ron Paul was right about earmarks. Earmarks direct spending instead of leaving general slush funds for the Executive to move around as it sees fit. It's a check on the Executive.

Southron
12-05-2014, 08:54 AM
While I would love to see the federal government limit its power, I dont expect it to happen. The states are suing the federal government in federal court. The states just need to ignore the courts and enforce immigration however they see fit.