Posted on 03/12/2015 1:25:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The Obama administration on Thursday stepped up its drive to revive President Barack Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration by asking a federal appeals court to block a judge’s order prohibiting the president from going forward with plans to offer quasi-legal status and work permits to millions more undocumented immigrants. Justice Department lawyers filed an emergency motion with the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, asking that court to overturn last month’s injunction by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen.
Hanen’s injunction was issued at the request of officials from 26 states who objected to Obama’s moves. “The district court’s order is unprecedented and wrong,” the Justice Department filing said. “The Constitution does not entitle States to intrude into the uniquely federal domain of immigration enforcement.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The Constitution does not entitle
The Constitution does not entitle
The Constitution does not entitle
The Constitution does not entitle
The Constitution does not entitle
D’oh
What does this have to do with Obama's executive action?
> “...plans to offer quasi-legal status and work permits to millions...”
> “The Constitution does not entitle States to intrude into the uniquely federal domain of immigration enforcement”
I am staring cross-eyed at the two statements above from Politico.
Bttt
Hanen’s order was extremely thorough and damning.
Good luck defeating on the merits.
Politics being a whole other thing, of course.
Don’t stare too long, you will go blind...
I thought staring cross-eyed was a new cure to give you 20/20 vision
I hope Judge Hanen packs heat and drives to and from his office by a different route each day. Someone with the courage to halt our Hugo Chavez wannabe in his tracks is a very brave man, and I don’t want to see him have a Breitbart incident.
It’s the old “No one has standing to challenge me so I can do whatever I want” argument.
No judge should hear their appeal until the veracity of their original argument is established.
Some states already intrude well into the federal domain of immigration enforcement and nothing is ever said about it. For example, many of them have established sanctuary cities that protect illegal immigrants. That seems to be all good and fine as long as the federal government agrees with it.
However when a state does something that the government does not agree with (i.e., control immigration) then it is seen as an intrusion into the federal domain.
The federal hypocrisy meter is pegging — again.
Not only are the states entitled, they are constitutionally entitled to declare war when they are being invaded which in my opinion, is EXACTLY what we, especially those of us in the western and southwestern states, should be demanding our state govts do, and put an end to this nonsense once and for all!
Fedzilla derives it’s authority from the states. Obama can pound sand.
I’m surprised our King even asked a federal court to take action...
Isn’t his spoken word enough...?
He promised to cool the earth and it happened...
Kings of old just uttered a decree and mountains moved...
Beware of vague references to the Constitution.
The corrupt Justice Department is wrongly ignoring that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify in broad terms that the Constitution’s silence about issues like immigration means that the states have reserved government power to regulate immigration uniquely to themselves, not the feds.
In fact, PC interpretations of the Constitution’s Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause (1.8.4) and slavery clause (1.9.1) aside, interpretations used to justify federal immigration laws, please consider the following.
Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had referenced the 10th Amendment in clarifying that states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.
As mentioned in related threads, here is the relevant exerpt from Jefferson’s writing.
“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
In fact, regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, activist judges and institutionally indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
If the 5th Circuit denies (as likely), the only choices left are appeal to the Supreme Court (which could take years) or ignore the law ...
Yup. Most people don’t know that under the Constitution, States can declare War if they are being invaded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.