"Now that President Barack Obama has broken his promise to take executive action on immigration, ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regardless that Obama has now broken his immigration promises, the problems with Obama's original, constitutionally indefensible, vote-winning approach to federal immigration policy were the following.
First, regardless what the Oval Office and also Democrats and RINOs in Congress evidently want people to think about executive orders actions, such actions do not have the force of law under the Constitution. This is evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952.
Essentially, presidents do need the legislative support of Congress for anything that they do. In fact, Congress has the constitutionally authority to override presidential vetoes if Congress deems such an action necessary.
The bottom line is that presidents cannot act unilaterally from Congress no matter what Obama, corrupt Congress and the corrupt media evidently want everybody to think.
Obama is also overlooking a more serious problem with federal immigration policy. More specifically, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution’s Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause (Clause 4 of Section 8 of Article I ) used to justify federal immigration laws aside, consider that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, immigration therefore uniquely a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson had clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, immigration thus a state power issue.
“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.
So not only is Obama wrongly usurping legislative powers from Congress to "fix" immigration problems, but Obama is trying to exercise powers that the states have never delegated to Congress!
In fact, note that the Supreme Court has officialy clarified that powers which the states haven't delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, are actually 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 Obama really wants the feds to have the constitutional authority to regulate immigration so that the usurper-in-chief can at least usurp bona-fide federal legislative powers, then he needs to do the following. He needs to rally Congress to propose an immigration amendment to the Constitution to the states. And if the states choose to ratify Obama's amendment then Congress will have the constitutional authority that it needs to regulate immigration and Obama will be a hero.
No offense taken at all, thanks for posting this insight.