Top Stories:

Meme Exposes How The GOP is Trying to SCAM Conservatives

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote for the administration in court papers that if the justices endorse blocking Obama’s plan, it would “allow states to frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.”

 

Editor:  Note the Supreme Court concerned with whether or not the Federal Government HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to ENFORCE immigration (which according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 it clearly does NOT¹) but whether or not the courts action may make it difficult for the feds to continue their tyranny.

Feds Have ZERO Immigration Policing Authority

Feds Have ZERO Immigration Policing Authority

The nine U.S. Supreme Court justices were due to meet privately on Friday to discuss whether to hear President Barack Obama’s bid to revive his plan to shield more than 4 million immigrants from deportation, a move that bypassed the Republican-led Congress.

The court could make an announcement as soon as Friday afternoon on whether it will take up the dispute, which would become one of the centerpiece cases of its current term.

Obama’s 2014 executive action, taken after Congress failed to pass bipartisan immigration legislation, was blocked by lower courts after Texas and 25 other Republican-governed states sued to stop it, contending he exceeded his presidential powers under the U.S. Constitution.

The justices must decide whether to take up the administration’s appeal of a November ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a February 2015 decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, a city along the Texas border with Mexico, to halt Obama’s action.

Obama’s executive order lifting the threat of deportation against more than 4 million illegal immigrants was directed at people with no criminal record whose children are U.S. citizens. Those eligible would be able to work legally and receive some federal benefits. States were not required to give any benefits.

With some of his major legislative initiatives stymied by Republican lawmakers, the Democratic president has resorted to executive action to circumvent Congress on issues including immigration, gun control, climate policy and the Obamacare healthcare law.

These steps have antagonized Republicans, who accuse him of unlawfully taking actions by executive fiat that should be the purview of Congress.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote for the administration in court papers that if the justices endorse blocking Obama’s plan, it would “allow states to frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton countered in court papers by saying, “Executive agencies are not entitled to rewrite immigration laws.”

Should the justices opt not to hear the case, Obama’s program would be effectively dead, with Obama’s term in office ending in January 2017.

 

¹  Constitutionally the Feds are directed by the Constitution to provide a uniform rule of naturalization.  Since the 10 Amendment clearly gives everything not delegated to the Federal Government to the states and the people immigration enforcement clearly becomes a STATE ISSUE.

TennesseeWatchman.com

 if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.

Disclaimer:

Opinions posted on TennesseeWatchman.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of TennesseeWatchman.com or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
%d bloggers like this: