Posted on 07/31/2013 7:02:21 PM PDT by moonshinner_09
A federal judge dismissed immigration agents’ lawsuit trying to overturn the administration’s non-deportation policies, arguing the court didn’t have jurisdiction because it was a personnel matter subject to collective bargaining.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and officers had argued that federal law requires them to arrest any illegal immigrants they encounter, disputing President Obama’s guidance that told them only to arrest those illegal immigrants who appear to have serious criminal records.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Impeachment File on Benghazi Coward “B. Hussein Obama,” formerly known as Barry Soetoro, currently a Legal Citizen of the Sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
I wish the American people had some “judges” that were on THEIR side every now and then. The American people almost always lose in the tyrannical courts in this country.
If only it were “Queen for a Day”...
Bath-house Barry gets a full two years to bask in the afterglow.
If the law specifically mandates border patrol agents arrest every illegal alien they reasonably do, or can come into contact with, then it would seem the court would have legal standing to mandate the agents be able to comply with the law. More specifically, the present _resident should comply with the law.
If the language is vague, then I guess the present _resident could decide how he will enforce the policies.
I still don’t see how this gets him around Article IV Section 4, which states “...shall protect the states from invasion.”
He swore to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution. He is actually disrespecting and destroying it.
Impeachment is the only recourse. It is sad, but there has to be some order to this. The Republicans taking the Senate in ‘14, would sure help. Of course you’d have to count McCain and Lindsay a definite NO on the jury. Just sayin’...
What?????
Welcome to your new lawless, corrupt, lower standard of living Third World!!
Personnel matter?
I wonder if the judge would imagine it a “personnel matter” if he was ordered to never find against an illegal alien appearing before his court?
“I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Yep, just a personnel matter. Take it up with the judge’s union.
Oh dang! We’re going to need a lot more rope and lamp posts for the judges as well as the politicos.
It’s over. Rush didn’t say it but I think he thinks it’s over, too.
Once the GOOBers ram amnesty down our throats, America is finished. I feel bad for my kids and my grandkids. We failed them.
Someone got to this judge. The case went on for 8 months, before he ruled in May that he was about to side with the ICE agents in about a week or so. Then, on the very last day for replies, the DOJ submitted this “employee dispute” nonsense...two whole months go by, and he dismisses it on these narrow technical grounds!
The recent years since 9/11 have proven our elected representatives have little to no interest in presenting or passing legislation that passes constitutional muster. A myriad of laws such as Patriot Act, GM takeover, NDAA, Bankster bailouts, Operating government without formal budget, mandated Healthcare and coming legislative assaults on second amendment all point to an out of control nearly, if not actually, tyranical government our founders never intended but clearly warned us about.
In other threads I have touched on the subject of the oath of office and find its treated as just words to be said but no one holds those taking the oath responsible so I thought it a good topic for discussion especially since violating the oath is codified as a violation of federal law and executive order.
The oath taken by both houses of Congress reads,
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God
Congressional Oath of Office
It is apparent that the section of the oath that seems almost daily violated by politicians is “I will bear true faith and allegience to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without reservation or purpose of evasion;”
The congress as a whole along with the executive branch has been knowingly presenting legislation contrary to the constitution and then relying on legal challenges to make it to supreme court for final disposition, that folks is still a violation of the oath taken no matter the lawyeristic manuever of passing legislation as constitutional and waiting for a challenge. If these were your children you would immediately scold for exceeding limits by their hope of getting away with trouble but suffering consequences for only the most egregious just by sheer quantity, its evasive both by congress and by children, both should be accountable.
Below is the most detailed listing of codes covering the subject of congressional oath and pealties for violation,
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
Violating Oath
The subject I am bringing to the table is “why do the American people allow their representatives to break oath of office (a federal crime) and not hold them accountable?
This should be a non-partisan subject simply due to the fact this has been going on for long decades and both parties are guilty according to the law.
I have myself watched a slow and steady deterioration of personal freedom going on fourty years and the accumulation is IMHO about to reach a tipping point where those hard fought rights become meaningless.
The scales could be tipped back somewhat if the public had awareness that the oath has teeth and voiced expectation that it be taken seriously.
5 U.S.C. 3331:
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service...shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”
5 U.S.C. 3333:
“...an individual who accepts office or employment in the government of the United States...shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title.”
5 U.S.C. 7311 (1):
“An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government...” [”advocate: to plead in favor of: defend by argument before a tribunal or the public; support or recommend publicly.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary] ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both”
Executive Order 10450 (in part):
Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in...the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States... it is hereby ordered as follows:
(a)The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment.. of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited to the following:
(4)Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” [form: established method of expression or practice; fixed or formal way of proceeding; procedure according to rule or rote. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary] (Italics and underlines added).
I have to admit I’m glad that I don’t have any kids or grandkids to feel sorry for.
If Isaiah 3:2 has come to fulfillment, then there is yet more trouble ahead.
Well then, we’ll have to stop selecting judges from a pool of candidates that include lawyers.
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.