Battle over Obama immigration actions lands before Supreme Court

Fox News

The impassioned election-year debate over President Obama’s immigration executive actions lands Monday before a short-handed Supreme Court, where justices will consider a fundamental question: how much power does the president truly have?

The justices plan to hold 90 minutes of oral arguments dealing with Obama’s bid to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.  

A coalition of states calls it an executive power grab. “President Obama’s executive action is an affront to our system of republican self-government,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who supports those states.

But the White House contends the president’s authority is clear, and the policies humane and reasonable. Obama has promoted his program as a plan to “prioritize deporting felons not families.”

It’s a case that will be closely watched in an election season where Republican front-runner Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement a centerpiece of his campaign. The outcome also could have considerable bearing on Obama’s legacy, potentially determining whether his lame-duck bid to go around Congress is upheld or ruled an overreach.

At issue Monday is whether as many as 5 million illegal immigrants can be spared deportation — including those who entered the U.S. as children, and the parents of citizens or legal residents. The programs — known as Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens and Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — effectively went around the Republican-led Congress.

Opponents, including 26 states and GOP members of Congress, say the plan exceeds constitutional power.

A federal appeals court earlier had struck down DAPA, which has yet to go fully into effect. The Justice Department then asked the high court for a final review, in what could be a key test of Obama’s executive powers his last year in office.

The decision to review the case was welcome on both sides of the aisle.

“The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress, not the president,” said Hatch, urging the justices to rule against the administration.

But the White House voiced confidence the policies would be upheld.

“Like millions of families across this country — immigrants who want to be held accountable, to work on the books, to pay taxes, and to contribute to our society openly and honestly — we are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to review the immigration case,” spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said.

The issue of illegal immigration has taken a center-stage role in the Republican primary battle, as Trump calls for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and candidates spar over who is toughest on the issue.

The immigrants who would benefit from the Obama administration’s plan are mainly parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said in a court filing that allowing the past rulings to stand would force millions “to continue to work off the books.”

Besides immigration, Obama has used his unilateral authority to act on such hot-button issues as gun control, health care and global warming.

However, as with other high-profile Supreme Court appeals this term — on ObamaCare, abortion rights and affirmative action — the outcome here likely will be affected by death in February of Justice Antonin Scalia, which left a 4-4 bench split along conservative-liberal lines.

A 4-4 ruling would effectively scuttle the issue until after Obama leaves office in nine months, and mean at least a temporary setback to his domestic policy legacy — even if the justices punt, and choose to reargue the case when Scalia’s replacement is sworn in. The justices also could rule narrowly on procedure, finding a compromise on a technical issue not directly related to the larger policy questions.

On the legal side, the GOP-controlled House filed an amicus brief supporting the states, telling the high court, “the Executive does not have the power to authorize — let alone facilitate — the prospective violation of the immigration laws on a massive class-wide scale.”

Supporters of the administration vow this issue will resonate in an election year.

“There are millions of families of U.S.-born citizens that live under the fear of separation and deportation,” said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota, an Hispanic advocacy nonprofit. “Our community is watching and will hold accountable those who have stood on the way of our families through the ballots in November.”

MFV and other immigrant rights advocates plan to march at the Supreme Court around Monday’s arguments.

The case is U.S. v. Texas (15-674). A ruling is expected by late June.

3 thoughts on “Battle over Obama immigration actions lands before Supreme Court

  1. The supreme court decision is the next, predictable step in the usual drama.

    “…. where justices will consider a fundamental question: how much power does the president truly have?”

    Do “the justices” know how to read English? Maybe one of the crooked kikes should have a look at the Constitution, and find out whose job it is to make laws in this country, and whether the president has any authority to break them.

    It’s a simple enough matter to anyone else, but the supreme traitors will spend 90 minutes discussing how they’re going to explain away the illegal orders they received to the American people.

  2. The law of our land as such, is alive but not well since it has been usurped long ago. The framing of this law was predicated upon 3 branches of gov’t. Not 4! These 3 were designed, written and designated to be forever separate and limited to each ones job description. Period. These usurpers have used bribery, sinful temptations, and threats against any and all of our servant ‘politicians’ in their attempt to subvert these public servants’ oaths to us-“We the people”. When these Men wrote these documents to set up that system, every word used was unambiguous. Thus, each word could not be twisted (Wicca) to mean anything else other than each word defined and understood at their time period. They knew that the words they were using in the BOR (Bill Of Rights) and The Constitution for the united States of America were specific, exclusive, understandable as to lawful common law definitions. Since these words used at the time of these writings can be clearly defined by the definitions of these words used during this time period, no honest argument can be promoted against such to alter the same. Today, if one has done some studying/searching, the various scams of the numerous scam usurper ‘authorities’ from your local ‘gov’t’ corporate authority all the way to each STATE SUPREME COURT, up to the Fed Supreme Court Conspirators are all involved in the same scam. There is no honor, no truth, nor duty in any of these people to serve you or myself. Lady Justice so to speak was murdered or at the very least kicked out of the Office of The Courts which our founders wrote in law to be a place where WE The People could go to get our grievances addressed. As all of the OFFICES that We The People Created, The OFFICE of the President is only one of the many created to serve We The People. No more and no less. We gave authority to the Office! Not, the man or woman hired/payed to do the job of that office. The servant hired to do the specific job requirements of that office has absolutely NO authority to decide to do anything outside of the specifics given to The limited Office Job description. Period. Anyone given a job paid by We the People in any one of the 3 branches of Gov’t who oversteps the limitations of their Office Job descriptions is involved a criminal usurpation against our limited system. This is and will always be treason! Doug

  3. “… 5 million illegal immigrants …”

    First, illegals are NOT “immigrants”, they are invaders.

    Second, NO US President was ever delegated the authority to create laws/regulations/codes/executive orders/etc that are lawful and binding on Americans only can be binding on those that serve within the federal government. That little word “All” in Article 1 delegates that authority to those that serve within the Senate and the House of Representatives, and by so doing FORBIDS anyone else that serves within the legislative branch, the other two branches from creating legislation. Matter of fact, NO US President can create Treaties that are binding on the USA without two thirds of the Senate.

    It is critical to understand that not only is our governments NOT the people who serve within them, but ARE the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution, that the duties of those who serve within them are in writing and easy for anyone to find, read, and understand.

    Michael LeMieux puts it very well when he said: “The Constitution has very little to do with the American citizen. It was written to establish a Federal Government and to place the boundaries by which that government would operate. The constitution was never designed to provide or enumerate the rights of the citizens but to restrain the federal government from meddling in state and ultimately citizen affairs.”

    “… before a short-handed Supreme Court, where justices will consider a fundamental question: how much power does the president truly have?”

    Judges do not *”interpret” the US Constitution, nor do THEY decide how much “power” anyone who serves within our government has. That is the CONTRACTS that those who serve within our governments are under, that they agree to either “Support and defend” before anything else including orders of superiors (if any) and before the duties of the position they occupy – they are OATHBOUND to do those things; or as ONLY those that serve as US Presidents are bound to a higher standard of “Preserving, Protecting, and Defending the US Constitution.

    Breaking that Oath is a felony and the crime of Perjury. Plus it requires removal of the person/people who did so, a fine, and time in prison. It used to require hanging after a trial and a finding of guilty. But when those who are Traitors decided to work from the inside to destroy America, the US Constitution they changed the requirements.

    WAS – Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.

    IS NOW – Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    That is because breaking the Oath is Treason against the American people; it is breaking the contract they are under and agreed to to be able to serve within that position they occupy – and we all know that contract law is very strong. The Oath makes breaking it Treason against the American people, NOT JUST a crime.

    “Besides immigration, Obama has used his unilateral authority to act on such hot-button issues as gun control, health care and global warming.”

    Show me where in the US Constitution where ANY person serving as the US President is allowed to use a power NOT delegated to the position (it is NOT delegated to the person serving, they are allowed to use it IF they do the duties assigned, and take and KEEP the oath. That applies to all position low and high within our governments.

    *Alexander Hamilton, defending the new Constitution, and especially its Treaty Clause: “I aver, that it was understood by all to be the intent of the provision [the Treaty Clause] to give to that power the most ample latitude to render it competent to all the stipulations, which the exigencies of National Affairs might require—competent to the making of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and every other species of Convention usual among nations and competent in the course of its exercise to controul & bind the legislative power of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two thirds of the Senate with the President being required to make a Treaty. I appeal for this with confidence.” … “An alliance is only a species of Treaty, a particular of a general. And the power of ‘entering into Treaties,’ which terms confer the authority under which the former Government acted, will not be pretended to be stronger than the power ‘to make Treaties,’ which are the terms constituting the authority under which the present Government acts.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes – delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; …”

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    Thomas Jefferson: “If the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

    James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.