Obama’s threatened Executive Order amnesty would be a meaningless piece of paper!

[johnwk]

.

There is an important principle of law that an unconstitutional act, although masquerading as “law”, “imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” ___ 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256


What this means is, if Obama should write on a piece of paper that millions of aliens who have invaded our borders and are here illegally should meet conditions arbitrarily decided upon by Obama, shall then no longer be subjected to deportation, that piece of paper would have no more legal force and effect than used toilet paper, and would provide no privileges or immunities to illegal entrants, nor protect them from future deportation. In fact, if Obama took this approach it would give illegal entrants and their families a false hope, and they would be in for a very, very rude awakening in the future!


Of course, the above contention is based upon the assumption that our president is not vested with legislative powers. And this assumption turns out to be correct because Congress, the People’s elected Representatives from each State, are vested with the exclusive power to adopt legislation, and this includes legislating laws dealing with aliens and naturalization. On the other hand President Obama, under our Constitution, is specifically and emphatically commanded to be faithful to our Constitution and execute laws passed by Congress! The president is not vested with power to disregard the policy making decisions enacted by the People’s Representatives and supplant his own policy in its place.


So why is our establishment media continually telling us Obama will be signing an Executive Order granting amnesty to tens of millions of illegal entrants this Thanksgiving day? Is our establishment media trying to convince us that if Obama pens an Executive Order as described above it would have the force of law, and these illegal entrants would no longer be subject to deportation under existing statutory law? Is it not crystal clear that if Obama does write an Executive Order as described above he would be engaging in an act of sedition? Why is our big media trying to brainwash us into thinking President Obama has authority to ignore our Constitution and statutory laws passed by Congress which deal with illegal entrants and naturalization, and supplant his own arbitrarily created legislation? And what about our law enforcement agencies across the nation? Are they to enforce Obama’s declarations or our Constitution and laws passed by Congress?


As to the immediate action which the House and Senate should take if Obama does carry out his threat, Congress should pass a joint resolution declaring Obama’s Executive Order is unconstitutional, is an act of sedition, and it “imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” By doing so, it would put our law enforcement agencies across America on notice to ignore Obama’s sedition, while likewise putting illegal entrants on notice that Obama’s unlawful act is null and void and provides no protection to them!


JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

[Tod]

.....unless everyone pretends that it comes from the deity known as "authoritah", in which case it will have meaning.

[GunnyFreedom]

Of course it's true. Do you think the Republicons will hold him to account? Psssht! (honestly, I don't think you do believe they will suddenly grow a spine)

[AlexAmore]

Why do you want government regulating and involved in the free movement of natural resources (immigrants)? Surely, you're not saying you know how micromanage an economy. That would be so Keynesian of you!

[AlexAmore]

Why do you want government regulating and involved in the free movement of natural resources (immigrants)? Surely, you're not saying you know how micromanage an economy. That would be so Keynesian of you!

[GunnyFreedom]

Pretty sure someone can hold an anti illegal immigration position without being a Keynesianist. Some of us just are not big fans of that whole globalist one-world government thing that a borderless society would necessarily create at this point in time. Does this mean the next time you disagree on the kind of beer that goes into the pitcher everyone can call you a fascist? After all, just as much as John is here advocating for restricting the free movement across national borders, you would be forcing your will on the rest of the table who really wants to drink piss water instead of beer.

Calling John a Keynesian because he does not like open borders, is like calling you a fascist because you don't like pisswater beer. In fact, the simile is basically identical, and in both cases it is misplaced.

[johnwk]

Why do you want government regulating and involved in the free movement of natural resources (immigrants)? Surely, you're not saying you know how micromanage an economy. That would be so Keynesian of you!

I have no problem with it if they all move into your house.


JWK

The Obama Administration is employing the same cowardly tactics used by the Hamas. It hides behind woman and children while flooding our country with the poverty stricken, disease carrying populations of other countries!





JWK

[Dianne]

I would like impeachment but republicrats already took that off the table. I would prefer to see Obama arrested. That would definitely be the highlight of my year. He is guilty of so many high crimes and misdemeanours he would never see the light of day again. Even the architect of Obamacare admitted yesterday they intentionally lied to the public, relying on lack of transparency and the stupidity of the people to ram the law through. That proves Obama is not as ignorant as he appears, but rather intentionally committing acts to betray the American people.

[acptulsa]

You know, advocating that Obama violate the Constitution is sedition. And I don't think that it would be a bad idea for us to say so out loud.

[ZENemy]

well, he and his side has the guns and can kill anyone they want; legally.

[AlexAmore]

Pretty sure someone can hold an anti illegal immigration position without being a Keynesianist. Some of us just are not big fans of that whole globalist one-world government thing that a borderless society would necessarily create at this point in time. Does this mean the next time you disagree on the kind of beer that goes into the pitcher everyone can call you a fascist? After all, just as much as John is here advocating for restricting the free movement across national borders, you would be forcing your will on the rest of the table who really wants to drink piss water instead of beer.

Calling John a Keynesian because he does not like open borders, is like calling you a fascist because you don't like pisswater beer. In fact, the simile is basically identical, and in both cases it is misplaced.

I think I, and most people, know how to settle a disagreement about what beer to drink. I simply don't claim to know how to manage and intervene into a massive economy with a trillion moving parts and make sweeping arbitrary regulations such as restricting immigration....for the better. It's very Keynesian....beer disagreements are not quite on that level.

[johnwk]

I would like impeachment but republicrats already took that off the table. I would prefer to see Obama arrested. That would definitely be the highlight of my year. He is guilty of so many high crimes and misdemeanours he would never see the light of day again. Even the architect of Obamacare admitted yesterday they intentionally lied to the public, relying on lack of transparency and the stupidity of the people to ram the law through. That proves Obama is not as ignorant as he appears, but rather intentionally committing acts to betray the American people.

Dianne,

Our founding fathers agree with you about Obama being guilty high crimes and misdemeanors. And to prove the point, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders should be considered as a "high misdemeanor" which happens to be an impeachable offense!


JWK



The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

[osan]

While everything you write is true in a normative context, that context is non-existent.

In the positive context, Obama has men with guns who maintain the chain of obedience with threats of violence and actual acts thereof. In positive fact, everything you wrote is dead-wrong. Congress, for example, holds ZERO normative authority to prohibit the cultivation, possession, sale, and use of cannabis. Yet, they have so prohibited, have established and funded men with guns to enforce their zero-authority fiat, and as a result countless millions of lives have been destroyed with prison terms, vicious acts of violence, criminal records that taint life's quality, and death itself.

The Framers had ZERO authority to impose Articles of Confederation or the Constitution upon the people of this land. Yet, they did precisely that.

As I am sure we all see, the list goes on for a good stretch of the legs. There is so much wrong with this land in terms of governance that correction appears hopeless. Many scoff at this, comparing us to the rest of the world, and while indeed things are "better" here, that does not mean those things are "right". We are in a frightful state of affairs in almost all facets of consideration. Governance is running amok in a world where people should be free, but people are too befouled of ignorance, sheer stupidity, cowardice, and all the other "sins" that damn them to lives where true freedom is impossible. The average man knows not what is "right" in terms of proper human relations and cannot, therefore, know what is right in terms of governance. He is too lazy to learn, too afeared of the work required to gain and maintain his freedom, and too wanting of someone else to do all the dirty work for him to ever make a serious attempt at free life.

The meaner has been well trained (anyone remember "Farm Aid"?) to be content with the low standard of behavior that says "to feel badly about a given cause is sufficient gesture and work". Now, all people have to do is "feel badly" about some cause or other circumstance and all is well in terms of his absolution of responsibility toward himself and his fellows. No action required; not even the opening of the wallet, though that is always encouraged and appreciated.

A world of such men holds zero hope of ever being free, for not only is freedom not attainable by them, it is not wanted in the first place.

[johnwk]

While everything you write is true in a normative context, that context is non-existent.

In the positive context, Obama has men with guns who maintain the chain of obedience with threats of violence . . .

The question to be answered is, will our law enforcement agencies across the country, Sheriffs, Police Departments, etc., submit to and follow Obama's Executive Order threatened tyranny or simply ignore it and follow existing statutory law an our Constitution which they took an oath to support and defend? And, let us not forget that we have been warned about submitting to tyranny.




”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” __ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.


JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

[osan]

The question to be answered is, will our law enforcement agencies across the country, Sheriffs, Police Departments, etc., submit to and follow Obama's Executive Order threatened tyranny or simply ignore it and follow existing statutory law an our Constitution which they took an oath to support and defend? And, let us not forget that we have been warned about submitting to tyranny.

I don't see this as being much of a question. Some will defy, most will not. Why am I confident of this? Percedent. Why did sheriffs enforce NFA34? GCA68? The Hughes Amendment? Drug laws? Why did they enforce any of the statutes that violate Individual rights? The question you might want to ask yourself is, "why is this different such that I am well reasoned in asking whether the EO will be enforced?" Precedent says it will be.

And if those in defiance constitute a sufficiently small minority, the feds will knock them off one at a time. Arrest, arraign, try, convict, imprison, rinse, repeat.

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” __ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

With this I agree. Our forbears should perhaps have hung the Framers. Sacrilege, I know, but nonetheless true. When put to even mild scrutiny, the establishment of so-called "governments" and "states" constitutes criminal action because it imposes upon people that to which they have not given consent. That is pure FAIL no matter how one cuts it. Naturally, people rarely function in such pure terms. But even when we are "practical" (baloney BS term to blunt the truth about tyranny), the shackles that have been put on our limbs cannot be justified in any measure or manner. American tyranny began in the earliest days - Whiskey Rebellion, Marbury... yah, it is nothing new even here.

[osan]

well, he and his side has the guns and can kill anyone they want; legally.

But not lawfully.

[idiom]

Obama’s threatened Executive Order amnesty would be a meaningless piece of paper!

Oh, its going to be a constitutional amendment now?

[ZENemy]

Yet tireless bombing of random countries year after year violates no laws at all?

[ZENemy]

But not lawfully.

Agree 100%!

[johnwk]

Keep in mind that Obama’s tyranny cannot be carried out unless there are federal employees willing to do his bidding and subvert our constitutionally limited system of government.

To find out who would be in charge of carrying out Obama’s illegal amnesty in your state and the physical address of the facility CLICK HERE and scroll down to the map and click on your state. For example, if you click on Texas you will find there are six field offices:

Dallas Field Office
This office is located at: 6500 Campus Circle Drive East Irving, TX 75063.

El Paso Field Office
This office is located at: 1545 Hawkins Boulevard El Paso, TX 79925.

Harlingen Field Office
This office is located at: 1717 Zoy Street Harlingen, TX 78552.

Houston Field Office
This office is located at: 126 Northpoint Drive Houston, TX 77060.

San Antonio Field Office
This office is located at: 8940 Fourwinds Drive San Antonio, TX 78239

And if you click on the specific field office, e.g., the Dallas Field Office, you then find those who would be asked to enforce and carry out Obama's Executive Ordered amnesty. In this case that would be field office Director: Tracy Tarango, District Director: Lisa Kehl

These two would have to make a decision to obey Obama’s wishes, or obey our Constitution and statutory law.

It may be helpful to write a letter to the field officer director and district director in your state and remind them that they took an oath to be faithful to our Constitution, and not to a president who has decided to ignore our Constitution and impose his will upon the people. Obama’s tyranny cannot take place unless he has willing accomplices!

JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[johnwk]

An immediate joint resolution by Congress condemning Obama’s Executive Order amnesty would have a very important legal meaning involved with acceptance by acquiescence!

Congress, and only Congress, has power to enact law, and that includes law dealing with naturalization and illegal entrants. If Obama carries through with his E.O. amnesty threat and dictates a policy dealing with illegal entrants which is contrary to Congress’ intended legislation dealing with the matter, a failure of Congress to not adopt an immediate joint resolution condemning Obama’s Executive Order would be a signal that Congress is acquiescing and deferring to Obama’s Executive Order amnesty by its silence!

A House/Senate Joint Resolution in response to Obama’s E.O. amnesty condemning it and stating specific reasons for condemnation would preempt the argument of Congress’ acquiescence; it would establish a legally recognizable good faith effort in the matter on Congress’ part; it would provide a necessary legal tool to have the Court grant an immediate injunction against Obama’s E.O., and it would put illegal entrants on notice that Obama’s Executive order carries no weight and offers them no legal protection from being punished and deported in the future . . . forewarned is forearmed!

Let us see if our new Congress is willing to confront Obama, and carry out the will of the American People.

JWK

The Obama Administration is employing the same cowardly tactics used by the Hamas. It hides behind woman and children while flooding our country with the poverty stricken, disease carrying populations of other countries!

[johnwk]

SEE: President Obama to announce executive action on immigration Thursday


"According to a senior Democrat familiar with the plans, Obama will announce on Thursday that he is providing temporary protections to up to 5 million undocumented immigrants. His orders will make up to 4 million undocumented immigrants eligible for temporary protective status and provide relief to another 1 million through other means."


The question is, under what power delegated to the president under Article II of our Constitution may Obama grant “temporary protections” to up to 5 million foreigners who have invaded our borders?

Keep in mind Congress has been granted exclusive power to set public policy with regard to naturalization and aliens who enter our Country illegally. Perhaps I’m wrong but I suspect President Obama will not identify the delegated power contained in our Constitution during his announcement tomorrow which authorizes his stated actions. In fact I am almost certain Obama will merely say some such thing as he is acting under his “lawful authority as president” without identifying the wording in our Constitution which actually authorizes the President to do what Obama will allege he has power to do.

In response to Obama’s actions _ should he not identify the wording in our Constitution granting the power he will assume and exercise __ the House and Senate must immediately adopt a joint resolution declaring Obama's order to be without constitutional authority and therefore it “imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” By doing so Congress would put our law enforcement agencies and administrative offices across America on notice to ignore Obama’s sedition, while likewise putting illegal entrants on notice that Obama’s order is null and void and provides no protection to them!

Finally, Congress’ next move would be to immediately file for an injunction to prohibit any federal or state agency to yield to Obama’s order while the constitutionality of Obama’s actions are being litigated.

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[CPUd]

[johnwk]

This is nothing to joke about!


JWK

[johnwk]

I know Obama is not supposed to use funds for amnesty if Congress puts this restriction in the budget. But we also know Obama ignores the rule of law and has instructed ICE to likewise ignore the rule of law and ICE has released countless illegal entrants into our population by following Obama's order. And this is the reason Congress must immediately adopt a Joint Resolution after Obama issues his amnesty order, condemning his order as not being a constitutionally authorized exercise of the powers granted to the president under our Constitution (see Article 2), and therefore, every State and Federal Agency is advised to ignore Obama’s order.



The House/Senate Joint Resolution should also state that Obama’s order, since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. – 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.



This is important to put illegal entrants on notice that Obama’s order does not afford them any protection from being punished and deported in the future for entering our country illegally!

Congress must immediately act in its OFFICIAL CAPACITY and condemn Obama's order! To not do so is a signal that Congress is abdicating its legislative power to Obama!

I think we will now learn which Republican members of Congress are actually on our side and in favor of defending our constitutionally limited system of government.


JWK



When will the America People realize we have a Muslim terrorist enabler in the Whitehouse? Will they come to this conclusion when terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?

[jmdrake]

.
There is an important principle of law that an unconstitutional act, although masquerading as “law”, “imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” ___ 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

What this means is, if Obama should write on a piece of paper that millions of aliens who have invaded our borders and are here illegally should meet conditions arbitrarily decided upon by Obama, shall then no longer be subjected to deportation, that piece of paper would have no more legal force and effect than used toilet paper, and would provide no privileges or immunities to illegal entrants, nor protect them from future deportation. In fact, if Obama took this approach it would give illegal entrants and their families a false hope, and they would be in for a very, very rude awakening in the future!

You know, technically you're right. But as the CEO of the country, that makes Obama the boss of every federal border patrol agent. Will they mutiny and actually do their job? I doubt it. States could fill in the gap and enforce the law themselves. Not sure how that would work out.

I would like impeachment but republicrats already took that off the table. I would prefer to see Obama arrested. That would definitely be the highlight of my year. He is guilty of so many high crimes and misdemeanours he would never see the light of day again. Even the architect of Obamacare admitted yesterday they intentionally lied to the public, relying on lack of transparency and the stupidity of the people to ram the law through. That proves Obama is not as ignorant as he appears, but rather intentionally committing acts to betray the American people.

Without the GOP having 2/3rds of the senate impeachment over immigration is a political impossibility. The only way Obama can get impeached is if he is caught doing something so shocking that even significant numbers of his own party are willing to turn on him. If selling guns to Mexican drug lords doesn't do it.......

[JK/SEA]

this will all work out in a COMPROMISE...

the dems will get amnesty, and the repubs get the pipeline...

next..

[anaconda]

Expanding temporary protections to certain illegals is not "amnesty." I think all it does it reshuffle the order of the deportation queue. Here is a good read from February in the WaPo (Obama has apparently already deported 2 million illegals):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...at-might-work/

[Anti Federalist]

well, he and his side has the guns and can kill anyone they want; legally.

I came in here to posit a similar, if opposing, counterpoint.

All of what our rulers decree would be meaningless pieces of paper, if we had the courage to stick ten million rifle barrels in their faces and tell them to STFU and go away.

[johnwk]

SEE: Greg Abbott Prepared to Sue Obama Admin. Over Executive Amnesty

”Texas' governor-elect, Attorney General Greg Abbott, laid out his border security strategy on Fox News' "The Kelly File" over the weekend. Abbott told host Martha MacCallum that if President Obama uses executive action on amnesty, it will result in the State of Texas launching a lawsuit against him.”

I believe this is a proper course of action for the State of Texas to take in addition to Texas immediately adopting a State Resolution condemning Obama's order as not being a constitutionally authorized exercise of the powers granted to the president under our Constitution (see Article 2), and therefore, the Resolution should also advise every Texas State Agency to ignore Obama’s order and not recognize work permits, drivers licenses, or grant access to State services [medical, schools, housing, etc.] which may be assertively available under Obama’s unconstitutional Order.

Attorney General Greg Abbott should also file for an immediate injunction in the Supreme Court to forbid Obama’s Order to take effect while the constitutionality of the Order is litigated. Under Article 3 of our Constitution the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” in cases involving a State!

Obama’s order needs to be stopped dead in its tracks before it takes effect and millions of illegal entrants start enjoying privileges and benefits attached to an unconstitutional order given by the president. Keep in mind, an unconstitutional act, although masquerading as “law”, “imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” ___ 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256


Once again let me emphasize that we need cool heads and to follow sound thinking and principles already laid out by our nation’s history. Let us not forget how our founders reacted to tyranny and despotism, i.e., the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Kentucky Resolutions, all of which were the first step in response to the very kind of tyranny and despotism which is now engaged in by the Obama Administration!

JWK




The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47