Sen. Rand Paul: Use Supreme Court To Stop Obama’s Illegal Immigration Executive Orders

Sen. Rand Paul: Use Supreme Court To Stop Obama’s Illegal Immigration Executive Orders

Obama is expected to announce executive orders on unilateral immigration this Thursday, and some Republicans are gearing up for the fight.

According to Sen. Rand Paul, the Supreme Court could overturn Obama’s illegal orders.

Mr. Paul said Monday evening on Fox News’ “Hannity” program that a new Republican-controlled Congress could rein in potential executive orders through the appropriations process, as some in the GOP are calling for.

“We can pass legislation, but legislation would have to be signed by him,” he said.

But Mr. Paul hinted at another possible avenue, citing a case during the Truman administration where the Supreme Court overturned an executive order directing the government to run many of the steel mills in the country amid heightened demand from the Korean War.

“I think with regard to immigration reform, he’s doing something that Congress has not instructed him to do and in fact has instructed him otherwise, so I think the Supreme Court would strike it down – that takes a while, but that may be the only recourse short of a new president,” said Mr. Paul, who is a contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.


Of course, arrest and conviction of high treason works well too.

Sen. Ted Cruz wrote an excellent piece published on Politico:

Obama Is Not a Monarch

The president cannot act alone; the Constitution requires compromise.

The Constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation, and executive amnesty for immigrants here illegally unilaterally decreed from the White House would seriously undermine the rule of law.

Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the president threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally.

To be clear, the dispute over executive amnesty is not between President Obama and Republicans in Congress; it is a dispute between President Obama and the American people. The Democrats suffered historic losses in the midterm elections largely over the prospect of the president’s executive amnesty.

President Obama was correct: His policies were on the ballot across the nation in 2014. The elections were a referendum on amnesty, and the voters soundly rejected it. There was no ambiguity.

Undeterred, President Obama appears to be going forward. It is lawless. It is unconstitutional. He is defiant and angry at the American people. If he acts by executive diktat, President Obama will not be acting as a president, he will be acting as a monarch.

Thankfully, the framers of our Constitution, wary of the dangers of monarchy, gave the Congress tools to rein in abuses of power. They believed if the president wants to change the law, he cannot act alone; he must work with Congress.

He may not get everything he wants, but the Constitution requires compromise between the branches.

A monarch, however, does not compromise. As Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist 69, a monarch decrees, dictates, and rules through fiat power, which is what President Obama is attempting.

When the president embraces the tactics of a monarch, it becomes incumbent on Congress to wield the constitutional power it has to stop it.

Congress, representing the voice of the people, should use every tool available to prevent the president from subverting the rule of law.

When the president usurps the legislative power and defies the limits of his authority, it becomes all the more imperative for Congress to act. And Congress should use those powers given to it by the Constitution to counter a lawless executive branch—or it will lose its authority.




Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest