When answering this question with any certainty, it is not only important to look at the text of our Constitution, but the context in which that text was written in order to formulate a legitimate opinion as to what our Constitution means.
Speaking before an audience in Chicago on November. 25, 2014, Obama boldly stated that he “took an action to change the law” with respect to naturalization and immigration. For details see Obama Admits: 'I Just Took an Action to Change the Law'
So, one question to be answered here is whether Obama is vested with power to change statutory law. In fact, our Constitution, in crystal clear language declares that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” Additionally, and with respect to naturalization, it declares that Congress, not our president, shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ” And in another part of our Constitution our president is commanded that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …”
So, by Obama’s own admission, he is clearly violating the text of our Constitution and is attempting to usurp power to change existing law dealing with naturalization and illegal entrants. But let us go a step further and discover the context in which the power to enact law dealing with naturalization was granted to Congress. Exactly what were our forefathers intentions for granting this power to Congress?
Sherman, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution notes the intentions for which the power was granted. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148
Is Obama not attempting to force foreigners upon States who would not have received them in any other manner?
Representative Burk goes on to elaborate upon filling the country with useful men!
Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor. See Representative Burk, RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790
So, as it turns out, according to our forefathers expressed intentions, introducing the poverty stricken, uneducated, illiterate, low-skilled and disease infected populations of other countries into our Country, which is exactly what Obama is attempting to accomplish, ought to be considered a “high misdemeanor” in addition to an attempted usurpation of “legislative power”.
As established above, Obama’s actions not only violated the written text of our Constitution, but the context in which it was written and its “legislative intent”. And what is the most fundamental rule with regard to constitutional construction?
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
Speaking before an audience in Chicago on November. 25, 2014, Obama boldly stated that he “took an action to change the law” with respect to naturalization and immigration. For details see Obama Admits: 'I Just Took an Action to Change the Law'
So, one question to be answered here is whether Obama is vested with power to change statutory law. In fact, our Constitution, in crystal clear language declares that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” Additionally, and with respect to naturalization, it declares that Congress, not our president, shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . ” And in another part of our Constitution our president is commanded that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …”
So, by Obama’s own admission, he is clearly violating the text of our Constitution and is attempting to usurp power to change existing law dealing with naturalization and illegal entrants. But let us go a step further and discover the context in which the power to enact law dealing with naturalization was granted to Congress. Exactly what were our forefathers intentions for granting this power to Congress?
Sherman, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution notes the intentions for which the power was granted. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148
Is Obama not attempting to force foreigners upon States who would not have received them in any other manner?
Representative Burk goes on to elaborate upon filling the country with useful men!
Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor. See Representative Burk, RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790
So, as it turns out, according to our forefathers expressed intentions, introducing the poverty stricken, uneducated, illiterate, low-skilled and disease infected populations of other countries into our Country, which is exactly what Obama is attempting to accomplish, ought to be considered a “high misdemeanor” in addition to an attempted usurpation of “legislative power”.
As established above, Obama’s actions not only violated the written text of our Constitution, but the context in which it was written and its “legislative intent”. And what is the most fundamental rule with regard to constitutional construction?
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
