Who is governing the united States? In other words, who is responsible for making the law? According to the Constitution for the united States of America, the legislative branch, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, make the laws based on the authority given it in Article I. If the Constitution were followed, this is how it would work. But, the Constitution is not followed; therefore, the judicial branch, consisting of the Supreme Court and all lower courts, usurped authority to legislate from the bench. This has turned the united States into a "black robe oligarchy." To prove this point, the Department of Homeland Security decided to follow a judge's court order to restart DACA amnesty, renewing work permits for 15,000 illegal alien invaders.
The Department of Homeland Security says it will follow a judge’s order to restart the President Barack Obama’s ‘DACA’ amnesty and will renew work-permits given to 15,000 illegal immigrants.[illegal alien invaders]
The statement was released late Saturday night, but the statement did not say if the 15,000 ‘DACA’ illegals whose work permits have expired since September will actually get renewed permits before the administration’s lawyers can get through the legal process needed before the Supreme Court can countermand the judge’s order.
To block the judge’s order, the administration first must file an appeal with the California-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court is expected to support the judge and reject the administration’s appeal. Once the appeal is denied, White House lawyers can ask the nine-member Supreme Court to countermand the orders from the appeals court and the subordinate judge.
According to the agency:
Jan. 13, 2018, Update: Due to a federal court order, USCIS has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA. Until further notice, and unless otherwise provided in this guidance, the DACA policy will be operated on the terms in place before it was rescinded on Sept. 5, 2017.
Where in the Constitution does it authorize judges to interfere with executive orders? No copy of Article III of the Constitution for the united States of America reviewed authorizes any judge jurisdiction to interfere in executive matters. Moreover, where in the Constitution authorizes judges to cease the enforcement of the law? Policy made through executive action, such as the DACA amnesty phoned in by Hussein Soetoro, is not law. The executive action by President Trump instructing the immigration law be enforced is in keeping with the Constitution.
How many federal judges opposed bacha bazi Boingo Oingo or issued a court order for that clown to follow the Constitution and enforce the law? Let's count...zero! That's right, zero. Yet, these judges stand ready to block President Trump's rescinding an Oingo executive order, done by memo and in violation of the Constitution. The Department of Homeland Security bowed down to Oingo, as did the USCIS, by refusing to enforce duly passed constitutional immigration laws based on a memo by Oingo outlining his policy.
Part of the job description for the president, contained in Article II of the Constitution, is for the executive to faithfully see the laws are executed. During the Boingo Oingo administration years, an executive order issued by Oingo instructed DHS and USCIS to ignore immigration law thereby granting impunity from the law for being in the US in violation of our immigration laws. Because Congress failed to resolve the illegal alien invader issue, Boingo Oingo "acted on [his] own" as a dictator would to decree his policy as he wanted as the law. Where were the judges then? Yeah, out to lunch for eight years.
As many times as the Constitution for the united States has been read and studied, nowhere in Article III, concerning the judicial branch, and Article II, concerning the executive branch, does it give authority for any court to "block" the president from "faithfully seeing the laws are executed." Since DHS is organized to be under the executive branch, the executive issues instructions for it to follow – legal or not, constitutional or not. In the incident with Trump, the executive instructed DHS and USCIS to follow constitutional, duly legislated immigration law; he was doing his job. Yet, some willy-nilly federal judge in a lower court issued a court order for the president and DHS/USCIS to violate the Constitution. AND, these agencies did!
The judge’s decision, issued January 9, said the administration had not followed proper procedures for ending the benefits to illegals granted by Obama’s policy of offering work-permits to younger illegal immigrants who say they were brought into the United States as children by their illegal immigrant parents. Administration lawyers argued that Obama’s policy was illegal and that all required procedures were followed.
The United States District Court of Northern California issued the injunction, signed by the corrupt William Alsup, to usurp President Trump's executive order to enforce immigration law which is part of the job description of the office of the president. What is equally disturbing is the DHS/USCIS complied almost immediately with a judge who lacks the authority to intervene with executive orders. The judge basically upheld the illegality committed by the Boingo Oingo administration, stopping enforcement of the law. What happened to the famous "I will follow the instructions given by the president, even if it means violating the law" philosophy justifying to a congressional committee the agency's action to follow "policy." Policy is not law.
So, an executive "memo" instructing DHS/USCIS to violate the constitutional legislation in order to provide benefits, illegally, to criminal illegal alien invaders was not an issue with proper procedure. However, when the executive instructs DHS/USCIS to adhere to the constitutional duly legislated immigration law, then all of a sudden there is a procedure? And, it would be hilarious if it weren't true that an administrative lawyer actually argued proper procedures were followed. Us silly little Americans were told by Boingo Oingo that all it took was "a pen and a phone, and I'm going to use it." It's time Americans were privy to that procedure because this administration with their prestigious lawyers should have told the judge to pound sand.
Under Boingo Oingo, his "pen and phone" legislation was dubbed as falling under "prosecutorial discretion" as indicated by the memo on granting amnesty to illegal alien invaders. With the change in executives, would it not be feasible that "prosecutorial discretion" has now changed to enforcing the law? Of course; but, some judge with a feather up his backside "decided" prosecutorial discretion does not exist when the law is to be enforced. Policy and/or executive orders are not law. If these things were, there would be no need for a legislative branch. We would cease being a republic; we would be a dictatorship. By all accounts, the House should have impeached Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors for usurping legislative authority to be tried in the Senate.
Trump instructed a department and agency under the executive branch of government to enforce the law, ending the lawlessness on this issue perpetrated by Oingo and allowed by Congress through refusing to follow the constitutional requirement of impeachment of Oingo. It seems enforcement of the law is not feasible for many, so the black robe donned branch of the government moved to become the law-making branch, halting enforcement of the law, and turning this republic into a "black robe oligarchy" engaging in lawlessness.
According to Breitbart:
Obama’s amnesty was created despite federal law which bars work-permits for illegal immigrants.
A related amnesty for the illegal-immigrant parents of children born in the United States was also struck down by a Texas judge. That decision was later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New Orleans. The issue then went to the Supreme Court, but the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia allowed the four progressive justices on the court to block the top court from confirming the Texas judge’s decision.[interesting timing on the death of Justice Scalia]
Corruption infested judges and the judicial branch have placed this republic in jeopardy. With the third branch of government ushering in the age of legislating from the bench, what does the US need with a two-chambered Congress? It doesn't. Moreover, the need for an executive branch fades as well. By usurping power and authority not given to the judicial branch by the Constitution, and the unwillingness of Congress to impeach these judges, the third branch of government, which should be the least to offend, has become all three branches, which follows the organization of federal government agencies – executive, legislative and judicial branches all centered within the agency. When all three are rolled into one entity, it is a certainty that favoritism will be shown to itself.
The game is afoot. Unfortunately, the loser will be the ones who received little consideration despite their outcries of opposition to amnesty and lawlessness – the American people. The elected officials in DC are beholden to the corporations while judges are beholden to themselves. As each vies for controlling interest, the republic slowly self-destructs. So far, the score is judges/judicial branch 1000, legislative branch zero, executive branch 500, and the American people zero. Batter up!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.