Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/23/2016 11:15:43 AM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Elderberry

The president did not faithfully execute the law that says Congress must have a say when its laws are changed.

Nothing hard about that.


2 posted on 01/23/2016 11:20:59 AM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

It’s a tax! < /Roberts >


3 posted on 01/23/2016 11:24:15 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

If you feel like it, join in the Free Republic Caucus (each day)

The more who participate, the louder the voice on Free Republic is revealed to be.

Go to the Caucus and express your support for one of the candidates.

Be sure to read the rules and follow them so your candidate will benefit from your vote.

Those who have been coming by, good job.  I appreciate your participation.

Thank you.


LINK to Caucus 01/23/2016

The results are linked there at the bottom of the top of thread post.

Folks, if you haven't already and can manage it now, please support the FReepathon.  Thank you.  LINK

We've very lucky to have this forum where we can debate the issues of the day.

4 posted on 01/23/2016 11:25:59 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Free Republic Caucus: vote daily / watch for the thread / Starts 01/20 midnight to midnight EDST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

When is the decision scheduled?


5 posted on 01/23/2016 11:26:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

I look forward to another condescending lecture about how the US Constitution that empowers all these guys to impose their unpopular opinions on us, doesn’t apply to them. :)


6 posted on 01/23/2016 11:27:32 AM PST by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

Does that mean the SOCUS will take the law into their own hands?


7 posted on 01/23/2016 11:28:38 AM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

Obama’s executive lawlessness has been smacked down 12 times by the Supreme Court. Let’s hope this is lucky 13.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381302/obama-suffers-12th-unanimous-defeat-supreme-court-joel-gehrk


9 posted on 01/23/2016 11:30:05 AM PST by joshua c (Please dont feed the liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

Justice Obama, coming to a Supreme Court near you - if a democrat is elected.


11 posted on 01/23/2016 11:34:38 AM PST by CMB_polarization
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

It will be SCOTUs versus the American people.

Again.


15 posted on 01/23/2016 11:39:54 AM PST by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry
It would force millions of people, subject to removal but not removal priorities, to continue living in the U.S., working off the books or not working at all, potentially creating a burden on society in the long run

It would do no such thing. They are free to leave anytime. No one is forcing them to stay.

They are not victims but rather aggressors. They came here through dint of fraud and violence.

What is unprecedented here is the hostility of the "Federal" government against the States that created it. This "administration" and its small, militant core group of operatives are simply attempting to import an alien army to do their bidding - threaten the citizenry, and ultimately aid in a takeover of the citizen's property, namely the country.

That is all that is going on here, and the individuals in the "Federal" government should be prosecuted by the Congress for their Treason.

That's what aiding and abetting Invasion is, after all.

17 posted on 01/23/2016 11:46:48 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

“A major point of contention for the states is that the President allegedly worked to circumvent Congressional authority and undermined the importance of the notice-and-comment process pursuant to administrative law. Notice-and-comment is an informal rule-making process, codified in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under § 553. It requires the agency proposing the rule to publish its proposal in the Federal Register and grant opponents or supporters of the proposed rule to comment, amend, present data and evidence for or against, and generally speaking, participate in the development of a newly proposed rule. “

If he’d followed the law he could have done what he wanted since congress refuses to adequately fund immigration enforcement.
But he didn’t.


19 posted on 01/23/2016 11:47:42 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 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.


21 posted on 01/23/2016 11:53:12 AM PST by ZULU (Mt. McKinley is the tallest mountain in N. America. Denali is Aleut for "scam artist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

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.


23 posted on 01/23/2016 11:55:46 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

There you go. Obama wins!


27 posted on 01/23/2016 12:36:37 PM PST by Lil Flower (American by birth. Southern by the Grace of God. ROLL TIDE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry; All
Thank you for referencing that article Elderberry. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

”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.


31 posted on 01/23/2016 1:31:22 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry

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.


32 posted on 01/23/2016 2:57:12 PM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Elderberry
Executive Order.

Scalia better not blow this one.

33 posted on 01/23/2016 4:15:24 PM PST by Democratic-Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson