It was early in 2015 when WND broke the story that a federal judge in Texas had granted a temporary injunction halting Obama’s executive-order driven amnesty program which would let millions of illegal aliens stay, legally, in the U.S.
After all, Obama himself had said earlier, “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on the books that say that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen later was affirmed at the appellate level.
And on Monday, the Supreme Court appeared to be moving toward agreement with the lower courts, and Obama’s statement as well.
After oral arguments before the eight justices in a lawsuit challenging Obama’s authority to change the law to meet his political agenda, the the New York Daily News suggested the court was divided “between its liberal and conservative justices,” and Obama’s best hope was that some argument will swing Chief Justice John Roberts over to his side.
Otherwise, a 4-4 split on the issue would leave the lower court’s ruling, which forbids Obama from doing what he wants, standing. The justices are at eight in number because of the death earlier this year of Antonin Scalia.
The report said Roberts “asked questions suggesting he could side with the administration if there were a small change in the proposed programs.”
The report suggested the Obama amnesty plan description of the status of illegal immigrants – “lawful presence” – could be the hangup since congressional Republicans argued that is further than the president has a right to go.
That’s exactly right, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
“The Constitution couldn’t be any clearer. It’s Congress’s job to write the laws and it’s the president’s job to see that they are faithfully executed,” he said. “The president can’t just upend the Constitution any time the Congress disagrees with him. The separation of powers requires the president to seek congressional approval before policies can become law. That’s how the legislative process works and it is one of the things that distinguishes democracy from dictatorship, where a head of state simply rules by decree. President Obama doesn’t get to cheat the system just because it’s difficult.”
He continued, “What this case comes down to is whether or not President Obama wildly overstepped the bounds of his office by unlawfully acting to circumvent Congress and forcing his will on the American people. I am confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution and affirm that Congress — not the president — makes our laws.”
Obama had, on Nov. 20, 2014, announced he was unilaterally making some changes to the nation’s immigration laws. Analysts say those changes could give millions of illegal aliens that “lawful” status inside the United States.
But Issa pointed out that Obama had stated “22 times” that he does not have the power to make those changes.
So when he did take that action, Texas and 25 other states sued.
The News said Roberts’ interest in changing two words to make the Obama strategy better met some resistance.
“Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. told the justices that they could get rid of that phrase and essentially leave the programs unchanged,” the report said.
But lawyer Erin Murphy, representing Congress, said it couldn’t be done that easily.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sometimes sides with the liberals, expressed doubts about what Obama is trying to do, calling the president’s admission of illegal aliens, and then Congress approving, “upside down.”
Obama wants to install programs that could provide protection for an estimated four million to five million illegal aliens from deportation, to which they now are legally liable.
Part of the arguments against Obama’s plans have been that Obama himself said he was acting on his own because Congress refused to go along with him.
Texas and the other states argue that the president can’t simply change a law because Congress doesn’t do what he wants.
Hanen’s original order said the government could not to proceed with any portion of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.
The Texas lawsuit was filed when the states suddenly faced massive new demands for public services such as schooling and health care from foreigners who previously had been subject to deportation.
One-hundred and thirteen members of Congress – including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith – filed a brief in the case telling a federal court that Obama’s plans are illegal.
“Our position is clear – President Obama’s executive action is unconstitutional and impermissibly disrupts the separation of powers,” said Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice.
His organization is representing those 113 members of Congress – and nearly a quarter-million other Americans “who understand President Obama’s overreach amounted to changing the law.” The friend-of-the-court pleading was submitted to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which earlier upheld Hanen’s order.
“This is simply unacceptable. Impatient presidents don’t get to change the law. We’re confident that the appeals court will correctly conclude that President Obama’s action is unlawful and unconstitutional and will upholding the findings of the district court,” Sekulow said.
The dispute elevated to the astonishing when, in his Texas courtroom, Hanen bluntly asked a Justice Department attorney whether or not President Obama and federal officials can be believed regarding the administration’s executive action on immigration.
“I can trust what Secretary [Jeh] Johnson says … what President Obama says?” Hanen asked, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Fox News reported the judge even went further, instructing Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett, “That’s a yes or no question.”
She responded, “Yes, your honor.”
Hanen called the hearing because of questions about whether the Justice Department misled the judge by claiming that deportation reprieves would not go forward before he made a ruling. It turned out that federal officials had delayed deportation for 108,000 people for three years and granted them work permits.
The administration had argued the reprieves were granted under a 2012 program that was not impacted by Hanen’s order. But the 2012 program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, granted only two-year reprieves, while Obama’s November order allows three-year deferrals.
Hartnett told the judge “government attorneys hadn’t properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action,” Fox reported.
Hanen remained skeptical, and it was then he asked, “Can I trust what the president says?”
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/obamas-amnesty-in-peril-at-supreme-court/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/obamas-amnesty-in-peril-at-supreme-court/
No comments:
Post a Comment