Texas Leads 17-State Coalition To Sue Obama Admin Over Illegal Immigration Actions


The main difference between what Reagan did and what Obama is doing is the fact that Reagan was acting out of a law ALREADY PASSED by Congress and Obama is simply re-writing the law unilaterally WITHOUT CONGRESS, which the President isn’t able to do per the Constitution.

Without this separation of powers the Executive Branch can become tyrannical, which is happening right now with Obama.

As Judge Napolitano states, “When he suspends deportations, and when he imposes his own conditions on those suspensions, he’s effectively re-writing the law. And that violates his oath to enforce and uphold the law as it’s been written. The American people, the Congress and the courts need to know that we have a president who will enforce the law. When he says ‘I will not enforce the law because I don’t like it or I’m impatient’, that doesn’t wash under the Constitution.”

Abbott, in a news conference in Austin, said the “broken” immigration system should be fixed by Congress, not by “presidential fiat.”

He said President Obama’s recently announced executive actions — a move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation — “directly violate the fundamental promise to the American people” by running afoul of the Constitution.

“The ability of the president to dispense with laws was specifically considered and unanimously rejected at the Constitutional Convention,” he said.

Abbott specifically cited Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

He said the lawsuit asks the court to require Obama to go through Congress before enforcing laws, “rather than making them up himself.”

However, a White House official defended the actions as perfectly within the president’s authority.

“The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that federal officials can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws, and we are confident that the President’s executive actions are well within his legal authorities,” the official told Fox News.

The announcement opens a new front in the roiling debate across the country over the immigration actions.

The legal action comes as a separate legislative battle plays out on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans want to use a must-pass spending bill as leverage to defund the president’s immigration initiatives. But House Speaker John Boehner is trying to push off that battle until next year, when his party will control both chambers.

Under Obama’s order, announced Nov. 20, protection from deportation and the right to work will be extended to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.

In the lawsuit, Texas is joined by 16 other, mostly southern and Midwestern states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana.

Abbott argued Wednesday that Obama’s action “tramples” portions of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will “exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education.”

The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Source: foxnews.com


Share

181 Comments

Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest