Posted on 02/26/2015 8:50:57 AM PST by SoConPubbie
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson questioning whether the Obama Administration plans to comply with the court's injunction to stop President Obama's illegal amnesty in light of President Obama's public comments that DHS would "continue in the planning" of activities the court issued a cease and desist order to stop.
"Violating an unambiguous federal court order by defying its instructions to cease and desist a particular activity would represent a significant breach of your authority, and would be an escalation in abuse of our separation of powers. For a President and his cabinet to telegraph intent to violate a federal court order requires additional scrutiny from Congress," Sen. Cruz said.
Sen. Cruz requested the following information:
1) The precise DAPA program-related and DACA program expansion-related actions, procedures, processes, and/or preparations the Administration intends to continue to implement despite the current federal court order;
2) The specific sources of funding the Administration intends to use to continue to implement the above actions, procedures, processes, and/or preparations, including indications as to whether the funding comes from the general fund of the Treasury or one or more designated offsetting accounts;
3) A clarification of how continuing to prepare for the DAPA program and DACA program expansion does not violate the court order's specific instruction to refrain "from implementing any and all aspects or phases" of the DAPA program and DACA program expansion; and
4) The specific provisions of federal law that you believe permit the Administration to continue to implement the above actions, procedures, processes, and/or preparations in the face of the current federal court order.
Read the full text of the letter below and here.
February 24, 2015
The Honorable Jeh Johnson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
Dear Secretary Johnson:
I am writing to you today to confirm that the Obama Administration intends to honor the recently issued federal injunction against both the Administration's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and its expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Your comments and the President's comments raise serious questions about the Administration's intent to comply with the law and abide by the most basic rules of our American system of government.
As you know, the Administration's DAPA program, which you announced in a memorandum[1] on November 20, 2014, was enjoined last week by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Southern District of Texas. In granting his Order of Temporary Injunction, Judge Hanen explicitly applied the injunction to "[t]he United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees," and went on to state with clarity that the order "enjoined [the United States government] from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the [DAPA] program as set out" (emphasis added) in the DAPA program memorandum, "pending a final resolution of the merits of this case or until a further order of this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." The court order also enjoined any further implementation of the DACA program expansion "pending a trial on the merits or until a further order of this Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court."[2]
Your comments, and comments of the President, in the wake of the court order suggest the Administration intends to defy the injunction. In your press release in the wake of the injunction, you stated that, while the Department of Homeland Security recognizes that it "must comply" with the court order pending appeal or further court action, you also stated that the Department "will be prepared to implement DAPA and expanded DACA" at the conclusion of the litigation.[3] President Obama expressed a similar view, stating that the Department would "be prepared to implement [the DAPA program] fully as soon as the legal issues get resolved," will be engaged in "preparatory work [for the DAPA program and DACA program expansion] because this is a big piece of business," and "will continue in the planning because we want to make sure as soon as these legal issues get resolved ... that we are ready to go."[4] This is entirely unacceptable.
Violating an unambiguous federal court order by defying its instructions to cease and desist a particular activity would represent a significant breach of your authority, and would be an escalation in abuse of our separation of powers. For a President and his cabinet to telegraph intent to violate a federal court order requires additional scrutiny from Congress.
In order to help us learn more about the Administration's position, please provide the following information no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, February 27, 2015:
1) The precise DAPA program-related and DACA program expansion-related actions, procedures, processes, and/or preparations the Administration intends to continue to implement despite the current federal court order;
2) The specific sources of funding the Administration intends to use to continue to implement the above actions, procedures, processes, and/or preparations, including indications as to whether the funding comes from the general fund of the Treasury or one or more designated offsetting accounts;
3) A clarification of how continuing to prepare for the DAPA program and DACA program expansion does not violate the court order's specific instruction to refrain "from implementing any and all aspects or phases" of the DAPA program and DACA program expansion; and
4) The specific provisions of federal law that you believe permit the Administration to continue to implement the above actions, procedures, processes, and/or preparations in the face of the current federal court order.
My office, the people of the State of Texas, and the American people look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
Ted Cruz
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
###
There will be no pushback from RINO leadership because they view us conservatives as pawns to manipulate, control, and defeat.
With Obama’s lawless efforts to eradicate God, the traditional family unit, and the tax-paying middle-class in America, we must continue to vote for leaders who will stand fearlessly against the political infection of RINOism in the Republican Party that surrenders without a fight to the obamanation.
A few of the honorable men leading the charge against Obama is Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Jeff Sessions.
I see possible that US Marshals will be dispatched by federal courts to serve a summons for contempt.
I think Congress should be discussing preparations for appointing a Special Prosecutor.
ALL of this should MOST DEFINITELY happen... BUT WILL IT?
This exact reason is why we need Ted Cruz as President.
We need somebody who is NOT AFRAID .. I can’t tell you how important this is.
And .. the left is so afraid of him they are not including him on their polls .. but when a poll is taken from people who are more ethical, Ted is riding almost even with Walker.
Well, sorta. I'm good with that, but the Congress is acting like powerless eunuchs. And that will continue until something is done. I think a great step would be for the House (our House) to Impeach Jeh Johnson.
(so, with apologies to Mark Levin)
That's right! I said it!
IMPEACH JEH JOHNSON!
From WIkipedia: " the House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789. "
So it's not that uncommon. And in fact they have fully passed impeachment many times, again, Wiki:
Actual impeachments of 19 federal officers have taken place. Of these, 15 were federal judges: thirteen district court judges, one court of appeals judge (who also sat on the Commerce Court), and one Supreme Court Associate Justice. Of the other four, two were Presidents, one was a Cabinet secretary, and one was a U.S. Senator. Of the 19 impeached officials, eight were convicted. One, former judge Alcee Hastings, was elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives after being removed from office.
As a reminder here's what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means:
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.
Certainly Jeh Johnson's willfully disobeying a Federal Court Order, ignoring the laws passed by congress, refusing to enforce the border, allowing our country to be invaded, issueing documents to illegals in contradiction of the plain meaning of the law merits imeachment if anything does!
The beauty of this is it actually isolates Obama from all of his cabinet officers. It seems like there is no desire to impeach Obama - the Clinton affair wasn't viewed as a success for the GOP, and there is little doubt that impeaching Obama would be a PR disaster for the GOP.
But the head of DHS? He's nothing, he's no one. It cannot be said we are over-reaching, we are mearly removing a particularly horrible federal official.
Impeaching a few more officials would be good too: people in the IRS involved in the Tea Party targeting scandal and subsequent coverup come to mind.
You haven’t read through the thread to understand the context.
It adds nothing to spout off nonsensical sarcasm like yours about Ted Cruz. He’s a serious person and what he’s doing is a required step in any legal context. He’s not doing it for show.
US Marshals need probable cause and the judge’s instructions to engage.
Congress appointing a special prosecutor ‘can’ happen when the above happens. They will not do it before because evidence is needed.
So it is probable cause evidence that is the trigger.
Senator Cruz met with TX Governor Abbott and AG Paxton last week during recess and then he announced to the press that the Obama Administration *is* manufacturing counterfeit documents.
Then this week he writes this letter putting Jeh Johnson on notice.
Cruz is laying the groundwork.
So do nothing then, right?
This is a good example of why we need president Cruz.
Of all the possible '16 presidential candidates, he is uniquely qualified- based on his extensive constitutional knowledge and legal expertise-to clean up the giant unconstitutional mess in D.C.
Now if Cruz would THREATEN TO PROSECUTE “Jeh” the TWO GOOD THINGS will happen:
1) He will WIN THE NOMINATION
2) He will WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
But I suspect he’ll simply “play it safe” and probably lose both.
Of course I read the thread and I watched his CPAC speech, I like they guy, but writing a letter is not something I tend to get all a titter about. Exactly two Senators voted against Mitch's amnesty funding scam and Ted was not one of them.
Who were they?
Sessions and Inhohe
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.