States Given Until Monday to Respond in Immigration Lawsuit

A judge says a coalition of states suing to stop President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration has until Monday to respond to a request by the U.S. government to lift a temporary hold of Obama's orders.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, set the deadline in a court order he issued Tuesday.

Here is part of the response (we hope):

This posted 11/22/14....Hat Tip to xzins

Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 "NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES" (Required)

Government Printing Office ^ | 1986 | US Congress Posted on 11/22/2014, 4:03:19 PM by xzins

Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 "NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES" (Required) Government Printing Office ^ | 1986 | US Congress

Posted on 11/22/2014, 4:03:19 PM by xzins

"(3) NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES.—

"(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may not implement any change under paragraph (1) unless at least—

"(i) 60 days,

"(ii) one year, in the case of a major change described in subparagraph (D)(iii), or

"(iii) two years, in the case of a major change described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (D), before the date of implementation of the change, the President has prepared and transmitted to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report setting forth the proposed change. If the President proposes to make any change regarding social security account number cards, the President shall transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Finance of the Senate a written report setting forth the proposed change. The President promptly shall cause to have printed in the Federal Register the substance of any major change (described in subparagraph (D)) proposed and reported to Congress.

"(B) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—In any report under subparagraph (A) the President shall include recommendations for the establishment of civil and criminal sanctions for unauthorized use or disclosure of the information or identifiers contained in such system.

"(C) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF MAJOR CHANGES.—

"(i) HEARINGS AND REVIEW.—The Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate shall cause to have printed in the Congressional Record the substance of any major change described in subparagraph (D), shall hold hearings respecting the feasibility and desirability of implementing such a change, and, within the two year period before implementation, shall report to their respective Houses findings on whether or not such a change should be implemented.

"(ii) CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.—No major change may be implemented unless the Congress specifically provides, in an appropriations or other Act, for funds for implementation of the change.

"(D) MAJOR CHANGES REQUIRING TWO YEARS NOTICE AND CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.—As used in this paragraph, the term 'major change' means a change which would—

"(i) require an individual to present a new card or other document (designed specifically for use for this purpose) at the time of hiring, recruitment, or referral,

"(ii) provide for a telephone verification system under which an employer, recruiter, or referrer must transmit to a Federal official information concerning the immigration status of prospective employees and the official transmits to the person, and the person must record, a verification code, or

"(iii) require any change in any card used for accounting purposes under the Social Security Act, 42 USC 301 note. including any change requiring that the only social security account number cards which may be presented in order to comply with subsection (bXlXCXi) are such cards as are in a counterfeit-resistant form consistent with the second sentence of section 205(cX2XD) of the Social Security Act. 42 use 405.

Discussion here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3230042/posts?page=83

Not only did this post take only a fraction of an hour to put together, but it is arguably the best response that the states could give to the judge.

As mentioned in related theads, regardless of PC interpretations of the Constitution’s “Uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause (1.8.4), interpretations used to justify federal immigration laws, policies and lawless Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.

“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.

So since the feds have no constitutional authority to address immigrations issues, immigration uniquely a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue, lawless Obama’s immigration edicts are void and have no force as Jefferson might have put it.

In fact, regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that they cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds 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.

The problem is that if the attorneys representing the states on this immigration lawsuit went to the same law school that the judge did, then the states are in trouble.

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.