Posted on 11/21/2014 4:28:57 PM PST by Brown Deer
If President Obama grants executive amnesty to an unknown millions of Americans, there’s only one way Republicans can stop him — impeachment.
On Thursday’s show, the Judge told FOX News Radio’s Tom Sullivan why the President may have to resort to such extreme measures. He says, while Presidents do have right to practice prosecutorial discretion when it comes to immigration, Obama’s proposed actions risk nullifying the law altogether. And that’s going too far.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...
The last election was a disaster for the dems.
Practical result-
Nothing.
.. on some THE internet forum.
Impeachment might be the remedy, but it requires enough congressman with the courage and integrity to pull it off. I have little faith that politicians will do what’s best for this great country.
You are wasting what precious little time you think you have left trying to argue with me about my being correct, and you are failing in that effort as well.
I sure hope you are more effective in reality, or I will continue to be correct.
Doug is strong; I’ve met him and have talked to him several times when I lived in his CD.
But, he’s not talking....yet.
I don't know who this fellow Tom is, and I doubt I will make any effort to change that condition.
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
It is over TomKat, we have committed suicide.
Congress thinks it can't produce new law on the subject without Obama's signature so is limited to leaning on Obama and the media, which strategy to date has been a complete flop. But the states can also produce new law. Many of them are not only on our side on this issue, they are firmly under our control. However they currently lack jurisdiction. So give it to them, at least those that request it. States' rights folks like to talk about the tenth amendment. I give you the last paragraph of the tenth section of Article I:
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.We're used, through common usage, to thinking states simply can't do the things on this list, but really they can't do them "without the consent of the Congress." Which means they can do them... if Congress consents. Does anyone see anything that says or implies Obama must consent? Furthermore I'd argue, explicitly, along the lines Harry Reid used when suspending filibuster of presidential nominations. This should require a simple Senate majority, not 60 votes.
The process would start outside of Washington in the States. Two or more States (I imagine TX would take point, but assume at least one more would go along) would get together and hash out what was wanted, needed and practical. They then present their solution to Congress for formal consent. Any states that wanted to join the Compact and its model solution would free to do so. Those that wanted to stay with the Obama-centric status quo would be free to do so. Use the laboratory of the States as the Founders intended.
I can't fully envision what such a Compact might provide, as I'm neither a lawyer nor an expert of this situation. But I imagine Congress authorizing local authorities, within the Congressionally approved framework of the Compact, to administer and enforce pre-existing federal immigration law in place of the abdicated federal executive branch. They could also remove all jurisdiction from Article I courts in favor of present or newly established state courts. Call the Compact legal system "Citizen Exchanges." People would use them to establish their legal right to be there. Those failing would be exchanged back to their proper country. Constitutional questions regarding the rights of those judged to be illegals would be resolved via the State courts, with only Article III courts for federal oversight. They could authorize Compact states to keep troops in peacetime as needed to enforce it, holding the [States] "engaging in war" portion in reserve. They could authorize Compact states to make arrangements with foreign powers to return their stray citizens, either directly or by transportation through other Compact states. Congress probably couldn't fund it, but even without federal funding the benefits may be worth the state's costs. The participating States would be free to leave the Compact and return to Federal administration of such issues once they were convinced they'd be properly administered and enforced there.
If desired they could add other issues, such as voter fraud, to the Compact, or they may choose to form separate Compacts regarding other Federal Executively abdicated issues with like minded states. Just how much to include would depend on the wishes of the requesting states, and eventually on just how much they could convince Congress to consent. With the hard work being done at the State's level, with there being plenty pressure on the GOPe leadership to do something effective against Obama to save their own faces... and skins, and with the safety valve that the poor illegals could still enter the liberal back yards outside the Compact this may be politically possible. They wouldn't be proposing shutting the government down, they'd just be relocating part of it. Congress probably couldn't fund it, but even without federal funding the benefits may be worth the state's costs.
There doubtless would be controversy over just how legal or even Constitutional such arrangement would be. I know there is a body of law regarding Compacts, but certainly am no authority on such. Big legal minds at the State, and eventually the Congressional level (ie. Ted Cruz) should take part in its design. It should state in the preamble that this is being done on an emergency basis, in response to a crisis of willful lawlessness and failure to act by the President. Congress presently lacks the political will to exercise the Constitutionally suggested remedy of impeachment. If and when a sufficiently bipartisan will for that remedy arises, or when a lawful President be comes available through other means, the Compact can be resolves as no longer necessary to the public good. It also should point out that the principles underlying the Compact are far more Constitutional than the royalistic hot air creating the current emergency. Throw in all the quotes from Obama pointing out how what he did was illegal. And throw in quotes from the Declaration regarding our previous King's actions. And throw in quotes from the trial of Charles I for salt.
Some will say this is dividing the country, starting another Civil War. Well, as Phyllis Schafly said this week, it was Obama who shelled Ft. Sumter Thursday. He started it and against the will of a large majority of the country as expressed in both polls and a recent landslide election. Ft. Sumter divided the country into North and South. Obama's actions would be dividing it into Right... and Wrong. Wrong as he himself frequently had noted. This could have the effect of dividing the country into two large sections regarding immigration issues. When pressed on grounds of equal justice under the law we should firmly point to Obama as the source of any illegal inequality. If he'd just do his sworn duty and exercise the law conventionally there'd be no trouble. If unresolved the dichotomy of Compact (American) law vs. Obama's lawlessness would change the complexion of the two sections. Compact States, rather than becoming bluer as Obama had hoped, would lose much of their illegals and become redder. The blue Obama states would have to absorb most of the illegal influx. Although federal taxes would place part of that burden on Compact states, the Obama states would carry much of the burden at the state level and all of the social burden of their many new neighbors. I predict blue politics will shift. Over time even NYC wanted Mayor Rudy to clean us the place.
I can’t really blame the Lord for not listening.
Not only have we turned from Him, we threw his Blessing of freedom away when we thought that a man was God.
We are in for a hard fall, that much is very clear.
The Left never gives up. With every temporary setback, they come back harder than ever, whatever it takes.
The surrender pu$$ies at this site make me retch.
Don’t go to the bank on what judge nap tells you. He’s prone to comical overstatements.
.. Which means they can do them... if Congress consents .. This should require a simple Senate majority, not 60 votes.
Three hurdles spring to mind at first glance, and are offered merely for consideration:
1) Time - there are only two years of this bøstard left, and legislatures tend to act glacially;
2) Federal Courts - Utmost care with the wording of any compact must be taken to forestall, to the extent possible, any excuse for involvement of the (predominantly) black-robed usurpers;
3) Regional Prerogatives - ie avoiding the temptation for participating states too insist on inclusion of items specific enough to be off-putting to other participating states.
- - - - - -
Rather than being buried in the midst of this tangential article's comments, your fine work is well deserving of the increased visibility of a separate thread, and I would strongly encourage you to post same ASAP.
If something concrete isn't done to stop this traitør bastard, Mencken's black flag has every chance of becoming a common sight.
Alas I'm swamped this week and don't think I have enough time available to run a thread. So I took what little time I had to formulate my idea and dumped it in a promising pre-existing thread. I hope to find time to email it to Steve King, at the other end of my state and Sen. Cruz, trusting that if it gets noticed by either's staff it would spread to appropriate places. Other than King, Iowa isn't the right place to start this. Hurdles: Time, Federal Courts and Regional Prerogatives
This obviously needs to be done fast, starting with a small circle of activists like Gov. elect Abbott (who as good lawyer would understand and design better than Perry who'd be better used to evangelize it.) The RGA should be a strength, but with Christy in charge there should be avoided as long as possible. Because of the need for speed it should, at least initially, be as narrow in scope and as simple as meets the needs. Like ObamaCare, explicitly leave many of the details to the discretion of those implementing it, the states. I trust Compacts can be revised later as needed with additional Congressional support. If it flies the concept can be reused later for disparate groups of states. Push the regional issues back to the second round.
The Federal Courts are the libs big weapon. Limiting or even removing their jurisdiction is ours. It's been little used, so is poorly understood, alas including by me. Newt had spoken some of its past usage. I think it could be written to neuter the lower courts. This crisis justifies bringing it out. If only the Supremes, who are historically not eager for new large responsibilities, nor eager to jump into separation of power fights, can overturn it we have a chance to be tying up his remaining time, rather than him tying up ours. Write it to encourage any judge to allow it to operate pending review as it approximates the legal norm while without it Obama created an unlawful black hole. It should be written so the Supremes, in taking it up, would have the choice to come down against Obama's actions as well as to come down against our response. Express the concept that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. This would not be intended to be permanent, but a temporary patch, lamentably geographically partial, until Constitutional executive functioning resumes. Strategically there should be public plea for Biden to invoke the 25th ('this is crazy, the President is crazy, take over, Joe, until you can get him some help') and there should be some effort through the media to get 34+ Senate Rats on the record that they don't think this is impeachable. I doubt the Rats, especially Biden, could resist responding, thus establishing our case that we had no other option.
Tell the public, we're NOT shutting down any part of government. We're trying to rescue as much of what Obama shut down as we can. If people want their rule of law back contact their state government and urge them to join the Compact.
I give up.
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.