Posted on 09/08/2017 11:39:20 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The University of California sued the Trump administration in federal court Friday, accusing the president of violating the rights of students and the UC by rescinding a program that temporarily prevents deportation of immigrants brought to this country illegally as children.
UC President Janet Napolitano served as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013.
The UC suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, accuses the administration of “wrongly and unconstitutionally” ending the program on “nothing more than unreasoned executive whim.”
DACA participants “represent the best of who we are — hard working, resilient and motivated high achievers,” Napolitano said in a statement. “To arbitrarily and capriciously end the DACA program, which benefits our country as a whole, is not only unlawful, it is contrary to our national values and bad policy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
She has no standing, and no harm has been experienced by any class member.
Get the hell out of my courtroom.
>The biggest problem is most liberals don’t understand the concept of constitutional rule of law and those that understand and in leadership positions look at the constitution as something to go around to get what they want.
When the liberals say Constitution and the rule of law, they mean whatever the judges decide. And the judges themselves are more like priests than judges and don’t care a fig about the law.
In other words, corrupt Congress let Obama get away with stealing legislative powers to establish DACA, protecting their voting records by doing so.
Unconstitutional DACA probably helped career lawmakers to get reelected simply by publicly supporting it, regardless that they never voted to establish it.
Next, consider that although Trump is accomplishing a LOT as president, it remains that since the uniparty Congress wants to get rid of him that his first two years in office are arguably for practice. That being said ...
Drain the swamp sewer! Drain the sewer!
Remember in November 2018 !
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed here.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”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.
Also, unlike incumbent members of Congress who wrongly remained silent while misguided state officials abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens during the lawless Obama Administration, patriots need to make sure that candidates on the 2018 primary ballots commit to the following.
Candidates need to commit to making and enforcing 14th Amendment-related laws to prosecute misguided state officials who use state powers to abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech for example, such actions prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!
The Constitution is unConstitutional now, didn’t you know that?
As each of its provisions are in turn held by the liberal appointed judges, and even some of the Supreme Court justices, to be of the totally opposite interpretation that has applied for a couple of centuries previously, the Constitution gets hollowed out and only a ghoulish shadow of itself remains.
So the pushback on DACA is also held to be “unConstitutional”, because nobody will apply the provisions that clearly demonstrate the Executive Action that established the policy was based on faulty reasoning and had no force in law.
And “Obamacare” is a tax. Just another manifestation of the reasoning that the Constitution no longer means what its words so plainly state.
Oh the irony.
Isnt this the sister of Judge Napolitano ???
the university must be making a buck or 2 having the illegal alien dacas as students...
Can the California lawyers really use this argument with a straight face?
I’m reminded of the lawyer who asked an expert witness how he knew the patient was really dead. The pathologist responded, “Because his brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. Did you really go to law school?”
That is what I want to know. Full on banana republic time with this one.
Have you read this yet?
:)
The Left is simultaneously suing to keep this EO while suing to stop the travel ban EO. We need some sanity from the judiciary branch ASAP.
I guess UC doesn’t have any professors steeped in the constitution. (I’m looking at YOU, Janice)
A presidential mandate not a law voted upon. Not the law of the land nor constitutionally protected Another presidential mandate can easily undo it, and has.
DACA participants “represent the best of who we are — hard working, resilient and motivated high achievers,”
The DACA is a Presidential reprieve.
It’s not something that can be cancelled.
It can only apply to those to whom it was granted.
If Trump decides to gives us all a 200-year reprieve on paying our 2017 income taxes, he can. And there’s nothing Congress or Trump’s successors could do about it.
The President has power under the Constitution itself to grant reprieves and pardons.
so she found her Judge
Always wondered what it’d be like to join a circus.
It’s unconstitutional to nullify an unconstitutional rule!
Unfortunately they will probably win in the Ninth Circus.
So, enforcing the law is unconstitutional. How does that work?
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.