Despite a Texas judge issuing an injunction against Obama's amnesty (Obamnesty), the administration has approached a federal appeals court to allow the administration to continue their unconstitutional action declaring the lower judge's ruling "unprecedented and wrong" claiming illegals will suffer.
Texas, along with 25 other states, filed a lawsuit to halt Obamnesty. Judge Andrew Hanen halted the action through an injunction; however, the attorneys for the Justice Department claim they should not have been granted standing. They claim that Judge Hanen should allow the administration to continue to process illegal alien invaders for amnesty in states who did not object.
Justice Department attorneys assert, "In short, the preliminary injunction is a sweeping order that extends beyond the parties before the court and irreparably harms the government and public interest."
But, isn't that how similar lawsuits work? It doesn't take everyone to participate in a lawsuit when individuals, in this case, states, are harmed. Class action lawsuits only require a certain percentage of individuals to claim harm in order for a lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the "class" of individuals seeking relief. And, wasn't it this administration who sued the state of Arizona regarding that state's immigration laws arguing there could not be a "patchwork of policies for different states?"
Judge Hanen ruled that Texas had standing to sue because of harm incurred by Obamnesty in the issuing of driver's licenses to the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants. The administration counters this by claiming "the policies Mr. Obama announced were only guidelines that don't need to be shared for public comment."
The administration has asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the continuation of the amnesty decree while at the same time they were apologizing to Judge Hanen for "misleading" him in the case. Illegal alien invaders were being processed for Obamnesty, to the tune of 100,000 "dreamers," after it was announced in November; but, attorneys for the administration implied they were not doing so to Judge Hanen.
According to The Washington Times:
Mr. Obama, however, has seemed eager to begin processing applications, telling audiences that once his program is up and running, he doubts it can be stopped.
As many as 4 million illegal immigrants could qualify for the policy, announced in November, that would grant tentative legal status, issue work permits and Social Security numbers to illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Hundreds of thousands of so-called Dreamers could qualify under a separate policy Mr. Obama announced in 2012 but expanded in November, which applies to illegal immigrants brought to the US as children.
The policy allows immigrants a three-year stay of deportation rather than the two-year stay included in his 2012 policy.
Kyle R. Freeney, a lawyer in the Justice Department's federal programs branch, stated "the three year versus two year questions don't affect the fundamentals of the case, which have to do with whether Texas has standing to sue and whether Mr. Obama broke the law or violated the constitution by trying to write laws himself."
Freeney also extended "regrets" for any confusion while telling the judge they are circumventing him by requesting the appeals court to get involved.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated he was focused on clearing up the confusion that has permeated the district court.
In a statement, Mr. Paxton said, "The most pressing issue at hand is the extent to which the Obama administration has already issued expanded work permits to illegal immigrants, in direct contradiction to what they told the district court."
Obama claims his actions are based on the powers of prosecutorial discretion – the power to decide whom to deport. While Judge Hanen did agree with that power, he asserted that Obama went overboard when a program was created that extended beyond deportation and granted tentative legal status and work permits to illegal alien invaders. In Judge Hanen's opinion, the safest course is to halt Obamnesty and hear the case in its entirety, which is the prudent thing to do. However, the Obama administration complained to the appeals court that it would be difficult to "ramp the amnesty back up now."
The administration has basically deceived the lower court and now invokes the appeals court to get involved claiming that the states have no standing to file a lawsuit. While the president does have the authority to decide whom to prosecute, the president does not have the authority to change law, create new law or legislate in any manner. That power is vested in the legislative body – the House and Senate chambers.
If the legislative body refuses to counter unconstitutional executive action regarding illegal alien invader amnesty resulting in the issuance of work permits and Social Security numbers, do the states then have standing to file a lawsuit against the administration when the states are harmed through expending their resources because of a unilateral executive action outside the powers of the executive? This is the question that hangs in the balance with the appeals court.
It is contended that by extending work permit visas and Social Security numbers to illegal alien invaders, Obama created new or changed existing immigration and naturalization laws via an executive action. According to the US Constitution, the power to establish rules and regulations related to Immigration and naturalization rests with Congress – Article I, Section 8. Congress has not changed the law; however, Obama's programs to issue work permits and Social Security numbers to those excluded from deportation violates the current immigration and naturalization laws.
States should have standing to file a lawsuit as they are harmed by the action of the administration since Congress has not legislated any change. And, funding of an unconstitutional action does not alter the law.
The administration would have everyone believe the office of the president has the authority to do so. However, our Constitution indicates otherwise. Only countries headed by dictators have rule and law by decree, not a constitutional republic. But, proponents for amnesty, and the programs that came into existence because of it, care not for the rule of law. As has been stated before, this is not about compassion or "doing the right thing" as this administration touts. This is about changing the demographic of this country and attempting to secure Democratic votes – nothing more.
Obama will not stop should this executive action be allowed to play out without a change in law by Congress. He is already considering a change in the tax law to raise taxes by executive fiat. All of his actions are directed at "transforming" further an America that has been altered from its once great state.
It would seem the United States has now started to operate more like a dictatorship than the constitutional republic established by our Constitution. While some members of Congress chide Obama for his trampling of the Constitution as Obama lectures Congress on the Constitution, that would be Sen. Rand Paul, no one in Congress, Democrat or Republican, will make a move to stop him using impeachment or the 25th Amendment. Since Congress has failed in its duty, Texas and 25 other states have stepped up to try and block the administration action.
The citizens of the United States now look to one federal judge willing to take a stand in order to reign in Obama. Should the judge find Obama exceeded his authority and the appeals court stand with the lower court, will Obama relent? That's an easy question to answer. The harder question to answer is what will be done about it if he doesn't relent? Worse still, what if Obama's actions are upheld?Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.