|
nChrist
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2016, 02:08:47 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 4-19-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
So when Congress didn’t go along with his agenda for amnesty, he insisted that he could simply act like the legislature and rewrite existing immigration law through executive fiat. For someone who so often claims to be a constitutional scholar, he certainly should have understood that the power of the pen has limits.
Those limits are specifically spelled out by the Framers of the Constitution in Article II. As The Wall Street Journal highlights17, “The executive shall — not "may” — execute Congress’s laws faithfully, in one of the Constitution’s most specific instructions.“ The Framers put this "take care clause” into the Constitution to prevent any president from acting like a king — something which Obama claims he isn’t all while his actions regularly indicate otherwise.
Obama’s executive action created two new programs18 for illegal immigrants. These new programs would shield approximately four million illegal immigrants from deportation and make them eligible to work. In other words, as the king hath spoken, so shall it be.
Fortunately, 26 states led by Texas filed a lawsuit (United States vs. Texas) against the Obama administration for acting without the consent of Congress.
By all indications Justice Anthony Kennedy supports the view of the states. “It’s as if … the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it,” he said. “That’s just upside down.”
Chief Justice John Roberts could be the deciding vote in this case — a 4-4 split would leave in place a lower court ruling against Obama. And Roberts appeared to doubt the administration’s arguments. He questioned Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and suggested that under the administration’s view of immigration law there are few limits to the president’s power. Roberts asked, “Under your argument, could the president grant deferred removal to every … unlawfully present alien in the United States right now?”
Verrilli responded, “Definitely not,” though it’s not clear what limitations on presidential power Obama will abide.
Of course, Justice Sonia Sotomayor chimed in with her two cents of nonsense. She noted that most of the immigrants who live here in the U.S. illegally “are here whether we want them or not.” So under her reasoning, the fact that they are here is sufficient cause to leave them be? To allow them to stay and work and receive copious amounts of federal aid and benefits6? Is this her interpretation of justice or law? Who would benefit from this? Certainly not the United States as a whole, certainly not our economy, and certainly not our nation’s security.
The answer is simple. The only segment of the population to benefit would be Democrats in office or those seeking office. That is Obama’s real immigration “reform” strategy.
As Mark Alexander explained19, “The Demo strategy is to craft that EO in such a way that Republicans can successfully chip away at it, primarily by defunding and de-authorizing key components of its implementation, as well as by issuing legal challenges. If the courts rule against Obama, which they most certainly should if they have any interest in preserving our Constitution, then the Democrats can assail Republicans as immigration obstructionist ahead of the 2016 election. Thus, Democrats will receive credit from both their legal and illegal Latino constituencies for, ostensibly, attempting to provide them with nine million Permanent Residency or Employment Authorization cards, while not offending their union constituents who oppose the flood of cheap labor.”
Should the High Court uphold the Rule of Law and declare that Obama’s action is indeed unconstitutional, then the imperial president will at least receive the political credit for trying. He will point out that it was Republicans' fault and he will continue to make promises all the way to the election in November with the attempt to secure enough votes for the next Democrat nominee. Stay tuned, because the future of our republic, our borders and our culture, may very well depend on the decision of eight Supreme Court Justices.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS: Who’s Responsible for Sandy Hook?20
UnitedHealth Announces Retreat From ObamaCare21
Where Are Trump’s Tax Returns?22
Gov’t Admits Violating Little Sisters' Religious Freedom23
TOP HEADLINES
Dozens Killed in Kabul Taliban Terrorist Attack24
200 More American Troops Deployed to Iraq25
Biden Slams Netanyahu Just Hours After Jerusalem Attacked26
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report27
OPINION IN BRIEF
Stephen Moore: “Leftists care more about the supposed rise of the oceans than the financial survival of the middle class. The industrial unions made a catastrophic decision to get in bed with these radicals, and now they — and all of us — are paying a heavy price. The latest evidence came last week when another coal giant in America, Peabody Energy Corp., filed for bankruptcy. This is the same fate suffered by Arch Coal Inc., Alpha Natural Resources Inc. and other coal producers that have filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors. This isn’t a result of free-market creative destruction. This was a policy strategy by the White House and green groups. They wanted this to happen. … America is the Saudi Arabia of coal; we have an estimated 500 years' supply. So for economic and ecological reasons, we should want American coal to dominate the world market. But the environmentalists' rallying cry is: ‘Keep it in the ground.’ Do liberals care that the demise of coal could lead to major disruptions in America’s electric power supply? … Perhaps the millennials will realize their mistake when they won’t be able to power up their PlayStations, iPhones and laptops.”
SHORT CUTS
Insight: “The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else.” —Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
For the record: “It is not Trump’s nomination until after he has earned it, under the rules that apply to all candidates. Nobody can ‘steal’ what was not his in the first place. The rules are the rules. As an old New York Yankees fan, I still have a painful memory of the 1960 World Series, where the Yankees scored 53 runs and the Pittsburgh Pirates scored 27. But the Pirates won the World Series, because the rules go by how many games were won, not how many runs were scored. … The time to change rules is before the game starts. If the current rules need changing, there will be four long years before the 2020 elections in which to try to create better rules. The 1960 Yankees never whined that the World Series had been ‘stolen’ from them. They were adults who knew the rules in advance.” —Thomas Sowell
Village Idiots: “It is an obscene amount of money. The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree completely.” —actor George Clooney on his own big-money fundraisers for Hillary Clinton (There’s an obscene amount of money in Hollywood.)
With friends like these… “I firmly believe that the actions that Israel’s government has taken over the past several years — the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures — they’re moving us and more importantly they’re moving Israel in the wrong direction.” —Joe Biden
Non Compos Mentis: “A woman voting for Ted Cruz is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” —Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards at a Hillary Clinton rally
And last… “Single greatest reform for limited government: Make Tax Day and Election Day the same day (plus get rid of withholding).” —Jonah Goldberg
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. |
