Posted on 01/23/2016 11:15:43 AM PST by Elderberry
The majority of Americans have spoken on this and the majority of their elected officials have spoken on this. If SCOTUS dares to uphold that criminal in the White House there should be immediate, appropriate and dire consequences by the people to take control of their government back.
If Scotus agrees with the lower courts they’ll just allow their bans on Obama’s actions to continue.
DACA, a program created in 2012, allows undocumented young people who came to the U.S
**************************************************
It allowed illegal aliens who came to the U.S. to get legal status and it was done illegally.
If we had an opposition party they would have been in court seeking an injunction the next day.
Whatever they have on Roberts, it must be convincing.
Then they can either render a ruling, or send the case back down for a decision in accordance with the principles set forth.
I am not even clear on the procedural posture. Right now there is just a TRO, I think. This can go around and around for a couple more years. Lawyers and judges getting rich while the invaders are free to enter as they please.
Concurrent when how long it takes to have carpet professionally installed in Hawaii ;->
There you go. Obama wins!
Thanks for that. I might study the case as SCOTUS ramps up and hears it. For now, it doesn’t interest me. Too many issues, too much work, too few hours in the day.
a match made in heaven
”Twenty-six states are challenging the President's executive actions relating to immigration implementations made in 2014 as an abuse of power and an attempt to circumvent Capitol Hill on policy making [emphasis added].”
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
Politically correct interpretations of the Constitutions ”Uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause (1.8.4) aside, interpretations used to justify federal immigration laws, please note the following. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had written that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, such power being unique, 10th Amendment-protected state power. This is evidence by the excerpts below.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Jeffersons writings.
” 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.
No they won’t. Where does the Constitution give SCOTUS power to make national law? SCOTUS is only constitutionally authorized to resolve specific CASES and CONTROVERSIES. Their decision IF RIGHTLY CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED, has power only over the parties of the case and any subsequent cases that have the same facts and questions of law.
It is also up to the other branches of the federal government and the states to determine the constitutionality of the executive branch assuming legislative power in Obama’s “executive orders”. It shouldn’t be hard to determine the unconstitutionality of MOST of Obama’s actions like this one. The REAL issue should be why Obama hasn’t yet been impeached and removed for violation of his oath of office, treason, and treachery against the U.S. Constitution.
If SCOTUS doesn’t decide using constitutional-based reasoning, which it rarely does, then their decision is to be null and void and the other branches and the states must decide, again based on sound constitutional-based reasoning.
Scalia better not blow this one.
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.