Sen. Sessions confirms Republican Leaders may be submitting to Obama’s EO amnesty!

[johnwk]

See: Sessions: GOP Has No Plan to Block Obama Amnesty

Senator Jeff Sessions says he’s not convinced his fellow Republicans have a plan to successfully combat President Obama’s newly announced executive orders on immigration.

“I haven’t seen the details of a plan to confront this unprecedented power grab,” Sessions said in a phone interview Thursday evening. He added that while plenty of his Republican colleagues have released “tough” statements following Obama’s announcement, he hasn’t seen the party coalesce around a plan.”

Unfortunately Sen. Sessions is absolutely correct! Our Republican Party Leadership’s response to Obama’s disregard to enforce existing law is to meander, beat its chest in front of every TV camera available and tell us something we already know. Obama’s executive action announcing to an estimated 5 million illegal entrants they may remain in our country if they register with the federal government, is not only disobeying existing statutory law which deals with illegal entrants, but Obama’s action is an attempt to usurp legislative power and a violation of our Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine, which in fact meets the definition of tyranny.

So, the only question in front of our Republican Party Leadership is how to respond to Obama’s tyranny? Surprising as it may seem our forefathers dealt with the same problem and their thoughtful response can be found in such documents as the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence and the Kentucky Resolutions, each of which were the first step in response to the very kind of tyranny engaged in by the Obama Administration!

So, let us focus on the Kentucky Resolution which was in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts.

As you will see, the State of Kentucky officially responded with a resolution condemning the alien and sedition laws and the representatives of the people boldly stated they would be faithless to themselves, and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce. And the people’s representatives concluded by writing in their resolution: ”… in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of federal compact; this commonwealth does now enter against them, its SOLEMN PROTEST.”

Is it not the duty of the House of Representatives, which is controlled by our Republican Representatives, to “officially” adopt a Resolution listing why Obama’s actions are in violation of existing statutory law; how his order usurps legislative power and violates our Constitution; and as such is not acquiesced to by the House of Representatives in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn in the future to a supposed acquiescence or the setting of a precedent?

Is it not a proper course of action for our Representatives to officially reject Obama’s usurpation of legislative power as being an unconstitutional Act and inform illegal entrants that an unconstitutional act, although masquerading as “law”, “imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” ___ 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Would it not be a good faith effort to inform illegal entrants that registering under Obama act does not provide them any protection in the future from being punished and deported for entering our country illegally, regardless of Obama's unenforceable act?

The bottom line is, I believe our forefathers approach to the alien and sedition laws is the proper first step to take in response to Obama’s act of tyranny, and is something the Republican Party Leadership should have no problem coalescing around which would answer Senator Sessions’ rightful claim that he hasn’t seen the party coalesce around a plan.

Let us recall the warning to us about submitting to despotism:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.”___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

JWK


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[Katzndogz]

The obola amnesty can last only the two years he has left. We could be like Brazil by then and hire hunters to rid neighborhoods of feral children.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I say again

It's brilliant strategy.

They wouldn't be able to stop him if they tried, so by not even trying they have just took that particular weapon out of the Dems arsenal come 2016.

Latinos are pretty conservative in all other respects. They are literally Republican voters waiting to be discovered.

The Dems can have the blacks and all their sympathizers, us conservatives will take the Hispanic vote all day, everyday.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Malbear, for adopting what I am saying, you Republican lefty.

Of course reaching out to the Latinos is a great thing for the GOP.

And it rids the party of any dependence on the crazies of the far right: e.g., read Tipsy above. What a mooncalf.

 

[johnwk]

I say again

It's brilliant strategy.

They wouldn't be able to stop him if they tried, so by not even trying they have just took that particular weapon out of the Dems arsenal come 2016.

Latinos are pretty conservative in all other respects. They are literally Republican voters waiting to be discovered.

The Dems can have the blacks and all their sympathizers, us conservatives will take the Hispanic vote all day, everyday.

Are you suggesting it is in the best interests of the United States and her taxpaying Citizens to allow Obama to flood our country with the poverty stricken, illiterate, low skilled and disease carrying populations of Mexico and Central America?


Do you have any idea of what this is and has been doing to our country?


let us look at some of the effects of this ongoing invasion in just one county in California including. CLICK HERE and scroll to page 91 for testimony given by JOAN ZINSER before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 13, 1995

Good morning Chairman Smith and other honorable members of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. I am Joan Zinser, Deputy Director of the San Diego County Department of Social Services. I direct the department's Income Maintenance Bureau, which has responsibility for AFDC, Food Stamps and Medicaid eligibility determinations. I am here today to tell you about the effects of illegal immigration on the County's assistance programs, and to present information regarding impacts on other county-funded services.

Impacts on San Diego County

In 1993, illegal aliens in San Diego County were estimated to be 7.9% of the population, or a total of almost 220,000 illegal aliens in a county with a population of slightly over 2 1/2 million. A 1993 Calffornia State Senate report estimated that the State, local governments - primarily the County - and schools incurred $304 million in costs to provide services to illegal aliens. These costs were offset by only $60 million in taxes generated by illegal aliens - leaving a net impact of $244 million.

Welfare Costs.

When a child is a US citizen, AFDC can be granted for the child but not the parent, if the parent is an undocumented immigrant. In 1992 there were 6,414 children born to undocumented immigrant parents in San Diego County hospitals. Each year, the illegal alien parents of nearly 2000 "citizen children" apply for and receive AFDC in San Diego County. The cumulative total of these "citizen child" cases continues to rise each year.
Public assistance is intended to support the citizen child, but is paid to the illegal alien parent and is, no doubt, used by the parent to support the entire family. Costs for providing AFDC to "citizen children" cases in San Diego totaled $37 million in 1993 for approximately 5430 AFDC cases.

Additional costs are incurred in Child Welfare Services. Combining costs for Out-of-Home and Family Maintenance services to families of illegal aliens results in an additional cost of $1.7 million.

Medicaid and Other Health-Related- Costs.

Medicaid services are an increasingly large portion of the costs involved in illegal immigration. In 1992, Medicaid paid for 6,414 births illegal alien mothers. Although studies have shown that illegal aliens use fewer Medicaid services than do the age-equivalent members of the general population, significant costs remain. Delivery costs are greater for babies with mothers lacking adequate prenatal care and many medical conditions are treated more cost-effectively in their early stages. Infectious diseases are also a major concern of the County. San Diego county has historically carried large costs because of illegal aliens with these problems. Costs associated with providing emergency and pregnancy related needs to illegal aliens are paid for under "restricted Medi-Cal benefits." During the 1992 calendar year, an estimated $37 million was paid for "restricted Medi-Cal benefits." Other costs, including uncompensated care in hospitals, community clinics, and other health services elevated the 1993 total costs to over $50 million.

Criminal justice.

A recent 90-day pilot project involved having INS Agents present in the county jails to interview those suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. Approximately 20% of the persons booked into the jails during that pilot were identified as being illegal aliens. With annual bookings of approximatel 105,000 persons a year, it is estimated that up to 21,000 were illegal aliens.

According to the San Diego County District Attorney, 8,521 felony crimes were committed by illegal aliens between 1987 and 1992. Illegal aliens commit an estimated 22% of felony crimes committed in the county. The number of misdemeanors committed during the same period in San Diego County by illegal aliens is estimated to be 17,000. In 1993, approximately 15. 1 % of the costs -accrued in dealing with crimes were spent on illegal aliens. Costs for illegal aliens to the legal system totaled $151 million in the County of San Diego for 1993.

Education.

Recently, a video of students crossing the border and getting on a school bus in San Diego County in order to receive free education was shown nationwide. Locally, we have worked to make sure that this situation does not recur, but education of the children of illegal aliens is also a significant CDSt. It is estimated that $60 million was spent in San Diego County in 1993 for education of illegal aliens.

______

JWK


They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

 

[JakeStarkey]

What flood? Ask him to support the GOP in strengthening the border in return for passing the Senate-version of the immigration bill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Obama’s disregard to enforce existing law...”

This is a lie.

The law is being enforced, particular classes of undocumented immigrants per their applications are being afforded deferred action on their cases so resources can be focused on prosecuting and deporting violent criminals and other serious offenders.

“Obama’s action is an attempt to usurp legislative power and a violation of our Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine, which in fact meets the definition of tyranny.”

This is a lie.

The president is acting in accordance with the Constitution and as authorized by Article II, he is acting in accordance with Federal law as enacted by by Congress authorizing prosecutorial discretion with regard to addressing matters concerning immigration, and he is acting in accordance with Constitutional case law as recognized by the Supreme Court.

It is partisan idiocy to refer to the president's lawful actions as 'tyranny.'

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It is partisan idiocy to refer to the president's lawful actions as 'tyranny.'

Then you must think left wing constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley is an idiot.

 

[johnwk]

“Obama’s disregard to enforce existing law...”

This is a lie.

The law is being enforced, particular classes of undocumented immigrants per their applications are being afforded deferred action on their cases so resources can be focused on prosecuting and deporting violent criminals and other serious offenders.

“Obama’s action is an attempt to usurp legislative power and a violation of our Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine, which in fact meets the definition of tyranny.”

This is a lie.

The president is acting in accordance with the Constitution and as authorized by Article II, he is acting in accordance with Federal law as enacted by by Congress authorizing prosecutorial discretion with regard to addressing matters concerning immigration, and he is acting in accordance with Constitutional case law as recognized by the Supreme Court.

It is partisan idiocy to refer to the president's lawful actions as 'tyranny.'

You assert that I lie but have failed to point to a defined presidential power contained in Article 2 of our Constitution which authorizes the President to set public policy regarding naturalization or how aliens are to be treated who enter our country in violation of statutory law. Contrary to you assertion, Article 2 does not contain the power you allege but does in fact command President Obama that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” And on November, 21st, 2014, President Obama, in defiance of his defined powers listed in Article 2, decided to instruct his Administration and federal employees to follow his own crafted policy dealing dealing with an approximate 5 million illegal entrants who now reside in the United States. Not only is Obama asking federal employees to ignore statutory law and follow his own crafted "policy" when Congress has exclusive power to adopt public policy dealing with naturalization and aliens who invade our borders, but in doing so Obama is committing a prosecutable offense!

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.


In regard to your assertion about “prosecutorial discretion”, you are flat wrong. The criminality of Obama’s action has nothing to do with “prosecutorial discretion”. He is engaging in a positive act by setting his own arbitrary policy and conditions under which he has declared that an approximate 5 million illegal entrants who have invaded our borders may stay in the country and work if they register with the federal government, pay taxes, etc., Obama is not authorized under our Constitution to set public policy or conditions dealing with naturalization or those who enter our country illegally. In fact, Obama is not only violating existing statutory law, he is attempting to usurp Congress' exclusive power to set public policy dealing with naturalization and aliens who inter our Country illegally.

Why do you assert I am lying? Where is your evidence and substantiation?

JWK


The Obama Administration is employing the same cowardly tactics used by the Hamas. It hides behind woman and children while flooding our country with the poverty stricken, disease carrying populations of other countries!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I say again

It's brilliant strategy.

They wouldn't be able to stop him if they tried, so by not even trying they have just took that particular weapon out of the Dems arsenal come 2016.

Latinos are pretty conservative in all other respects. They are literally Republican voters waiting to be discovered.

The Dems can have the blacks and all their sympathizers, us conservatives will take the Hispanic vote all day, everyday.

For every Hard working Mexican we accept as a citizen we will send one Progressive to Mexico

 

[johnwk]

It is partisan idiocy to refer to the president's lawful actions as 'tyranny.'

Then you must think left wing constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley is an idiot.

 

[johnwk]

They are seminar posters who are here to promote Obama, regardless of his intention to destroy American from within.

JWK



America we have a problem! We have a group of domestic enemies who have managed to gain political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the disarming of the American Citizen; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by the poverty stricken, poorly educated disease carrying populations of foreign nations, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government by Executive Orders; a continual attack upon the right to freedom of speech and a free press; the weakening and destruction of our manufacturing capabilities by tyrannical regulation; the making a trade deals which are not in America’s best interests and pose a threat to our national security; the transferring of America’s weapons of defense and military technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the infringement upon the American People’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs; the intentional sabotaging of our nation’s health care delivery system, the taking of private property for purposes other than a “public use” as limited by our federal Constitution; the use of federal taxing powers in a manner unauthorized by the legislative intent of our Constitution, and particularly violating the rule of apportioning “direct“ taxes; the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and an unconstitutional federally mandated retirement fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency by Federal Reserve Notes, a worthless script, having been despotically made a legal tender for all debts public and private, and, the future enslavement of our children and grandchildren via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

 

[The Rabbi]

The action will go to the states. They will sue the federal government. And win.

 

[johnwk]

The action will go to the states. They will sue the federal government. And win.

If the States do go into court and they are sincere about stopping Obama's executive action which would allow an approximate 5 million illegal entrants to stay, the States involved must file in the United States Supreme Court which has "original jurisdiction" in such cases and also file for an immediate injunction forbidding Obama's Administration from giving effect to Obama's usurpation of power. We will see if the States are really sincere, or whether they will play to allow Obama's order to take effect by stalling the case in lower courts, with appeal after appeal.


JWK

 

[SwimExpert]

Fighting Executive Orders would be a ridiculous strategy. It's like dealing with a crying baby by running a noisy vacuum cleaner. Congress' needs to respond with Congressional action, i.e. legislation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Fighting Executive Orders would be a ridiculous strategy. It's like dealing with a crying baby by running a noisy vacuum cleaner. Congress' needs to respond with Congressional action, i.e. legislation.

Well we don't have to worry about that these days.

 

[johnwk]

The action will go to the states. They will sue the federal government. And win.

S.C. has exclusive jurisdiction if States file suit against Obama’s E.O. amnesty

According to our Constitution’s legislative intent, if a number of states decide to file suit against Obama’s usurpation of power by setting his own arbitrary public policy dealing with an approximate 5 million illegal entrants, the States would in fact do well to file directly in the Supreme Court of the United States which is in accordance with the legislative intent of our Constitution. This case should not be filed in District Court which would prolong the case for years and compound the devastating financial and social consequences of 5 million illegal entrants no longer being subject to existing statutory law because of Obama’s arbitrary policy dealing with illegal entrants.

Our Constitution states: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

"Original jurisdiction" is that bestowed upon a tribunal in the first instance, and “shall“, as used in, “the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction”, preempts another tribunal, such as the inferior district courts created by Congress, from assuming the case in the first instance.

Additionally, “exclusive jurisdiction” is that which gives to one tribunal sole power to try the cause.


Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 81 confirms a case in which a State is party ought to be heard by the Supreme Court and not a district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:

Hamilton says:

“Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”


And this is why, under “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 see: Supreme court, original jurisdiction (scroll to bottom of page) we find:

"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."

In fact, by the wording of our Constitution, and by the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted as expressed in the Federalist Papers, the Supreme Court and not an inferior court created by Congress, has exclusive jurisdiction over Obama’s usurpation of power, should a State decide to file suite against Obama’s exercise of Congress’ exclusive power to set public policy dealing with naturalization and illegal entrants.


Additionally, should a number of States, especially border States, decide to file suit, they should immediately ask the Court for an injunction prohibiting Obama’s Administration to follow Obama’s Executive Order while its constitutionality is being adjudicated. To not grant the injunction would allow the devastating financial and social effects of 5 million aliens being exempted from statutory law to be compounded.

JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[JakeStarkey]

johnwk just lost the case against the EO. Let's move on.

 

[Katzndogz]

An executive order is not a law. obumble can only defer deportation he can't legalize these criminals. The next president can overturn obumble's act with another stroke if the pen. Deferment is over start packing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

EOs can be overturned, and the Dems will win every national election until the GOP gets it right.