Once a Constitutional law senior lecturer, Obama should have known his executive order was indeed unconstitutional, but the President’s arrogance and disregard for the Constitution have been evident for nearly a decade.
Ignoring Congress, he used his “power of the pen” to shield illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to continue working in the United States.
The immigration case dealt with two separate Obama programs. One would allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without the threat of deportation. The other would expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
The Supreme Court, in a one-sentence statement, blocked Obama’s executive action, bringing an important victory to the states that challenged his immigration order.
Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states’ lawsuit.
When the Republicans won control of the Senate in 2014, Obama recognized that an “immigration overhaul” was not going to happen, as a broad bill in 2013 had passed the Senate but died in the GOP House. Thus the president decided to go around Congress and creative his own rule of law on immigration.
The states brought their suit against the Obama initiative initially in Brownsville, Texas. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen sided with the states and kept the program from taking effect. The 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals then heard the case and also ruled in favor of the states, forcing the Justice Department to frantically appeal to the Supreme Court so it would be heard this term.
The victory for the states was celebrated with Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying,
“The action taken by the President was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the President the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. “Today’s ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans—including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law.”
This ruling will add fuel to the already ramped up discussions regarding immigration during this presidential election. As Trump rallies have experienced the visceral hate of the pro-immigration activists, the ruling will most likely create all the more violent protests at his campaign stops.
As the ruling was announced, pro-immigration activists filled the sidewalk in front of the court, some crying as the ruling became public. Critics of the policy touted the decision as a strong statement against “executive abuses.”
Obama responded that the country is now further away from that which he aspires the United States to be, but the “earlier changed his administration made to immigration policy are not affected.” He also said that additional executive actions are “unlikely”.
While Obama accepted the ruling, he also made his own full-court press, saying the split decision underscores the importance of the current court vacancy and the appointment of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, to “break this tie.” So far, Senate Republicans have not considered Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.
“The court’s inability to reach a decision in this case is a very clear reminder of why it’s so important for the Supreme Court to have a full bench,” he said Thursday at the White House.
Who wins the White House is of utmost importance as Scalia’s seat remains vacant. With a Hillary Clinton nominee, one will see SCOTUS become the most progressively left court ever in the history of the U.S. The damage that would be done, over the next 20 years by her appointment is the death knell for the Constitution itself. She made this case herself by saying, “Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election.”
The decision lands in the middle of a heated election season in which immigration is a central issue. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, won the primaries while railing against Obama administration immigration policies as dangerous.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton countered Ryan’s statement saying the decision was “purely procedural” and leaves “no doubt” the programs were within the president’s authority. Referencing the 4-4 split on the court, she again urged the Senate to give Obama’s nominee to fill the remaining court vacancy a vote.
For Hillary, she also believes it is within the powers of the president to write legislation through executive orders, also ignoring Article I Section I of the Constitution which states:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
November is equally about the presidency and SCOTUS. Who becomes the next President of the United States will affect the nation for decades to come with his or her nomination for the new justice.
As the Supreme Court ruled against Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, one must take notice that the balance of power, through the various branches of government, was established with brilliant forethought and intent. To allow another progressive to take the helm of this country and then leave an indelible print upon the Supreme Court will forever alter what the Founders put in place to protect the people against those who hunger after power more than for the rule of law and that which is best for “We the People”.
Source: Fox News
They want there culture here and law go back to where you came from are we have to send you back