Judge Arthur J. Schwab, presiding over the Western District of Pennsylvania, stated yesterday that Obama’s executive action to grant tentative amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants violates the Constitution.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.
The POTUS can only enforce law, not create them, of course, and Obama is attempting to write law, which only Congress can do.
SEE PAGE 2 FOR MORE + VIDEO:
So what, no one will do anyting thing about it.
If he were a constitutional law professor, I am the Wizard of Oz. More lies and propaganda.
Autocratic rule, just like the new budget bill
Robert Reich
U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab of Pennsylvania, who ruled yesterday that President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional, was appointed by George W. Bush in 2002. Judge Schwab has twice been removed from cases by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a rare occurrence for a judge, including a removal for bias. In a 2008 survey of lawyers with the Allegheny County Bar Association, Schwab received the lowest ranking among federal judges, for both for impartiality and temperament. In yesterday’s ruling, concerning an undocumented immigrant who was prosecuted for illegally re-entering the country, neither side had asked the court to weigh in on Obama’s executive actions; Schwab did so on his own without even holding a hearing on the president’s actions.
What the Progressive commentariat is not telling you is that the Reagan and Bush immigration orders looked nothing like Obama’s creation of a new, open-ended form of immigration relief.
Obama’s use of executive actions to defer deportation for up to 5 million people living in the country illegally relies on similar legal principles used by past presidents, although the issue of presidential authority may ultimately have to be decided in federal court. But there are some fundamental differences between Obama’s actions and those taken by past presidents.
The actions taken by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — examples often cited by White House officials — were attempts to address ambiguities in an immigration law that was passed by Congress. Obama’s executive actions are different. They are a response to congressional failure to pass a law, and they affect a far greater number of immigrants currently living in the country illegally.
Obama is clearly contravening both ordinary practice and the wishes of Congress—as expressed in statute—by declaring an amnesty himself. This is nothing like Reagan’s or Bush’s attempts to implement Congress’ amnesty.
If Obama wants to justify his lawless immigration action, he will have to do it some other way than citing prior Republican presidents. They, to their credit, were trying to implement Congress’ will. Obama, on the other hand, has declared that his government will act despite Congress, or, I suspect, to spite Congress. Such pettiness finds no support in the presidencies of Reagan and Bush.
You are correct. More liberal history rewrite. No one even remembers ever seeing obama during this time period.
I very seriously doubt that MUSLIM Obama ever taught Law @ The University of Chicago…..NEED PROOF!
Him a constitutional law prof? I guess it proves… those who can, do. Those who cant, teach.
Don’t let anyone fool you into believing he’s intelligent. Cunning and crafty yes, smart. not even close.
I would like to know just what those “judicial actions” were? I couldn’t get any farther in the Ill Bar Association site–just where it said they surrendered their license.