Texas Leads 17 States Suing Obama Administration Over Immigration Action

NBC News ^ | December 3, 2014 | by Carrie Dann

[Zenjitsuman]

I would wonder why Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada are not joining this suit? All have big Illegal problems

[Zenjitsuman]

I would wonder why Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada are not joining this suit? All have big Illegal problems

[onyx]

GO South Carolina!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH,

SC FReeper!!!

WooHoo!!

GO South Carolina!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH,

SC FReeper!!!

WooHoo!!

GO South Carolina!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH,

SC FReeper!!!

WooHoo!!

[JohnBovenmyer]

Iowa isn’t on the list, but I don’t know whether Branstad had the call. Our lefty Rat AG, who has been in office even longer than Branstad (who’ll soon have the all time, all state, record for most years as governor), may well have been the one to make the call. We ran a good young guy for AG, but he won big easily in spite of Joni winning big and Branstad winning by a landslide. He’ll probably only leave feet first.

[JRandomFreeper]

Nope. Per the Constitution, in suits by the States, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

He’ll probably only leave feet first.

Don't just sit there, go inherit something. ;)

/johnny

[sergeantdave]

“Good but I don’t understand if they win what will be accomplished that obama could not just ignore.”

If the SCOTUS rules that Buckwheat is violating the law, the states can move against the federal bureaucrats and arrest them. The states can also shut down federal offices in their respective states.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And even worse are the feckless RINOs who want amnesty as badly as Obama.

[StAntKnee]

Wow! Montana has a Dem gov.

[Patriot777]

We will see if SCOTUS continues to defend the thing that occupies the WH, or stands fully with the Constitution and the American People.

[txhurl]

Yes we states do. Zero has turned up the spigot of border jumpers with his amesty promise that states didn.t budget for.

[EagleUSA]

“How much you want to bet the supreme court says they don’t have standing because no damage has been done...yet.”

::::::::::::

Yes, possible, but how about OBAMACARE? Damage? We cannot even begin to calculate the damage, let alone the illegality of it all. Thank you John Roberts. We shall see.

[Comment Not Approved]

Most of us here in Montana are conservative ... and heavily armed.

[yorkiemom]

“Good but I don’t understand if they win what will be accomplished that obama could not just ignore.”

If it could go to the SC, that would be good. Violating the separation of powers should be something even Roberts can see.

[yorkiemom]

I don’t see Oklahoma or Tennessee either. I hope they join in.

[OneWingedShark]

The govs have the cajones.

Do they?
I'm inclined to disagree, give the responses I received from them.

[OneWingedShark]

Nope. Per the Constitution, in suits by the States, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.

That rather assumes the USSC respects the Constitution — I'm inclined to believe that they do not; several examples:

• [1942] Wickard v. Filburn — Which holds that the ability to regulate interstate commerce covers interstate commerce.
• [2005] GONZALES V. RAICH &mdash Which holds that the ability to regulate interstate commerce, and intrastate commerce via Wickard, extends to non-commerce.
• [1919] Schenck v. United States — Which held that congress shall pass no law doesn't apply when Congress has a right to prevent some substantive evils.
• [2005] KELO V. NEW LONDON — Which holds that government imagining more taxes qualifies for public use under the 5th Amendment.
• [2012] N.F.I.B. v. SEBELIUS — Which is predicated on the ability of the court to read its own meaning into things rather than depend on the text.
• [1973]Roe v. Wade — Which is predicated on the assumption that the states cannot be sovereign, making their own laws, but must bow to whatever the USSC says regardless of whether the Constitution covers the area in question or not.

I wish I were wrong, but Wickard has more than a half century behind it, Schenck almost a century, and Roe four decades.
That these egregious affronts continue to stand seems to me to be more than enough proof that the USSC does not respect the Constitution.

[tacticalogic]

[1942] Wickard v. Filburn — Which holds that the ability to regulate interstate commerce covers interstate commerce.

If you read Wickard v. Filburn, there was no actual commerce involved. Filburn was fined for growing wheat he fed to his own livestock, because by growing it himself he was potentially not engaging in the interstate commerce that might have resulted if he'd had to buy it.

[sergeantdave]

“We will see if SCOTUS continues to defend the thing that occupies the WH, or stands fully with the Constitution and the American People.”

It really doesn’t matter what SCOTUS rules. Buckwheat and his fascist racist goons don’t obey the law, so why should we?

Get ready to kick federal fascist ass, Patriot777.

[Chickensoup]

Thank God Maine is involved. Bless Lepage!