10 Scholars Defending Immigration Action Have Democratic Ties

10 Scholars Defending Immigration Action Have Democratic Ties

Nov 21, 2014 // 10:20pm As seen on The Kelly File
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta5NMPZnh6c

The Department of Justice has released a letter from 10 legal scholars at colleges across the country which defends President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration.

But while the DOJ touts these professors’ prominence, their neutrality is coming into question.

In the letter, the legal scholars say they don’t all see eye-to-eye on presidential power and immigration policy, but that they “are all of the view that these actions are lawful.”

Of the 10 legal scholars, seven are registered Democrats. Two live in states that don’t release party affiliation, but they both donate exclusively to Democratic candidates. The lone Republican, Eric Posner, is also an exclusive Democratic donor and has repeatedly written that Obama can literally “do whatever he wants” when it comes to executive authority.

Three of the scholars work at the University of Chicago, where Obama taught constitutional law.

One scholar, Lee Bollinger, is the president of Columbia University, where Obama did his undergrad work. Bollinger is also directly involved in the effort to make Columbia the site of Obama's presidential library.

Walter Dellinger, another letter writer, served in the Clinton administration and is friends with Justice Elena Kagan, who was nominated by Obama.

Then, there’s Laurence Tribe, a mentor to Obama at Harvard Law School, who called him “the best student I ever had and the most exciting research assistant.” He also campaigned for Obama.

Watch Trace Gallager’s report above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/21/10-scholars-defended-immigration-action-have-democratic-ties

1. Lee Bollinger Lawyer
Lee Carroll Bollinger is an American lawyer and educator who is serving as the 19th president of Columbia University. Hides Obama's Columbia College records.

2. Adam B Cox and Eric A Posner
they wrote a thesis called
"THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS"
Adam B.Cox and Eric A. Posner
read their work.. they promote Obama's bullshit
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/461-264.pdf

3. Cristina Rodriguez (Texas & St John’s 1995) is currently a professor at the Yale Law School. Earlier this year, she became the school’s first Hispanic tenured law professor. From 2011-2013 she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. She is an ERIC HOLDER'S LACKEY

4. Harold Hongju Koh... Obama Lawyer
Harold Hongju Koh is a Korean American lawyer.
He served as the Legal Adviser of the Department of State. He was nominated to this position by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2009, and confirmed by
the Senate on June 25, 2009

5. Walter Dellinger was head of the Office of Legal Counsel from 1993 to 1996. Writes for Slate ( LEFTY RAG !)
Partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP
INCLUDING Eric Holder...

FYI ..Tom Donilon is a partner in O’Melveny’s Washington, DC Office after serving in the administration of President Barack Obama for over four years, most recently as National Security Advisor.

Recently O'Melveny Partner Danielle Gray Appointed by President Obama as a Member of the Council of the Administrative Conference

6, Gillian Metzger.. Another Columbia School Hack... Gillian Metzger received a B in Contracts. She clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court and writes and teaches in the areas of Administrative and Constitutional Law AT COLUMBIA... Under Lee Bollinger ( see # 1)

7. Geoffrey Stone.. A University of Chicago professor. Obama's old school where Obama Lied he was a professor.. remember?

This man Geoffrey Stone..In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, made the following statement on the law school's faculty blog in a post entitled "Our Faith-Based Justices":

"What, then, explains this decision? Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore . . . . By making this judgment, these justices have failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality . . . .

Professor Stone's made patently bigoted remarks. but the MSM has completely ignored this story. And we all know why that is...You see folks, while the MSM rightly (and swiftly) condemns each and every racist remark uttered by a public figure, they are perfectly willing to allow Christians to be slandered at will without a peep. Geoffrey Stone is a Leftist Ideologue from the University of Chicago just like Obama.

8. David Strauss, is another a University of Chicago Law professor and one of Obama's Handmaidens in the Supreme Court.. Elena Kagan's closest ideological friends and ally on the faculty. He is a 100% supporter of Obama and believes that the Constitution is a "Living and evolving document" He even wrote a book call the "The Living Constitution" ..

9. Lawrence Tribe.. Saudi Bagman at Harvard. Was paid by the Saudi Cartel to make Obama the head of the Harvard Law Review. Although Obama's records at Harvard have never been exposed. All his Harvard records are sealed.
His quote in 2009...

“The written Constitution ‘floats’ in a vast and deep – and, crucially, invisible – ocean of ideas, propositions, recovered memories, and imagined experiences…The Invisible Constitution is not simply a mask for imposing a particular ideology on the Constitution, which is what people sometimes think.”…”What I am hoping is that people will come to see that we’re all engaged in the same game and that the political reality of the Constitution, which is not confined to the written text, is an equal-opportunity reality.”

Laurence H. Tribe (The Invisible Constitution) 2008

More on Tribe..

Laurence Tribe is the co-founder of the liberal activist “American Constitution Society”, a law and policy organization formed to breed and pit young activist lawyers, like himself, against originalism and constitutional jurisprudence. Tribe is considered as a demigod at Harvard and the cast of characters surrounding him over the years sounds like a who’s who of liberal activism progressive style. We have Aharon Barach, chief justice of Israel who believes in letting unrepentant genocidal terrorists roam free; Doris Kearn Goodwin, liberal revisionist historian; Akhil Amar, liberal law professor at Yale; Nina Totenberg, liberal legal correspondent for NPR. Most notably in Tribe’s cast of contributing characters, we find none other than Cass Sunstein, Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) & Barack Obama. The one I shall take note of today is Barack Obama.
While studying at Harvard, Obama became a research assistant to Tribe on his book – “Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes” (1990) and in turn, during Obama’s candidacy, Tribe did a political commercial congratulating Obama and publically supporting the Obama campaign.

This is a Conservative evaluation of Tribe:

‘Tribes judicial philosophy would be right up there with the most radical leftists of the Supreme Court, like Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and many other enemies of the original intent of the framers.”

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/…/the-congr…/

1987 Bill Ayers solicited Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (a.k.a. Donald Warden) to raise money for Obama’s Harvard Law School education. al-Mansour is an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an outspoken enemy of Israel, and mentor to Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his cohort, Bobby Seale. At the time al-Mansour associate Percy Sutton was raising money for Obama’s education, al-Mansour was the top financial advisor to mega-billionaire Prince Alwaleed (Alwalid) bin Talal of the Saudi royal family. They approached Lawrence tribe to take Obama under his wing and mentor him
Prince Alwaleed also donated millions to Harvard for a Center for Islamic studies which was contingent to Obama being made President of Harvard Law Review. Lawrence Tribe took his money and promoted Obama.


https://www.facebook.com/PrepareToTakeAmericaBack/posts/769554513099580

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism

Corruption, Educational Material, Media Blackout, US Congress Legislation October 25, 2009Comments: 5
This will be a multi-part series that focuses on Congresses knowledge of the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ and how they have purposely side stepped the constitution & the intent of the founding fathers regarding US citizenship by using ‘baby steps’ to achieve their ultimate goal:

“An Amendment to the Constitution to make eligible for the office of President any person who has been a US citizen for (X) amount of years”

I use (X) because there are several versions, all with differing views as to the number of years the citizen must be a continual resident prior to running for office.
‘Hope-n-Change’ Floats

“The written Constitution ‘floats’ in a vast and deep – and, crucially, invisible – ocean of ideas, propositions, recovered memories, and imagined experiences…The Invisible Constitution is not simply a mask for imposing a particular ideology on the Constitution, which is what people sometimes think.”…”What I am hoping is that people will come to see that we’re all engaged in the same game and that the political reality of the Constitution, which is not confined to the written text, is an equal-opportunity reality.”

Laurence H. Tribe (The Invisible Constitution) 2008

This folks is the view of every liberal progressive ideologue on capital hill today.

Laurence Tribe’s roots to the progressive movement span decades. Tribe graduated from Harvard Law in 1966, immediately clerked for Trobiner in the Ca Supreme Court for a year, then moved to DC where he clerked for Stewart for a year. Not having any real world experience, Tribe then joins Harvard as an assistant professor in 1968 and after 4 years, he received his tenure from Harvard in 1972.
Sounding familiar? Let’s continue on…

Laurence Tribe is the co-founder of the liberal activist “American Constitution Society”, a law and policy organization formed to breed and pit young activist lawyers, like himself, against originalism and constitutional jurisprudence. Tribe is considered as a demigod at Harvard and the cast of characters surrounding him over the years sounds like a who’s who of liberal activism progressive style. We have Aharon Barach, chief justice of Israel who believes in letting unrepentant genocidal terrorists roam free; Doris Kearn Goodwin, liberal revisionist historian; Akhil Amar, liberal law professor at Yale; Nina Totenberg, liberal legal correspondent for NPR. Most notably in Tribe’s cast of contributing characters, we find none other than Cass Sunstein, Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) & Barack Obama. The one I shall take note of today is Barack Obama.

While studying at Harvard, Obama became a research assistant to Tribe on his book – “Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes” (1990) and in turn, during Obama’s candidacy, Tribe did a political commercial congratulating Obama and publically supporting the Obama campaign.

During the campaign last year, Ellis Washington wrote this of Tribe:
‘Tribes judicial philosophy would be right up there with the most radical leftists of the Supreme Court, like Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and many other enemies of the original intent of the framers.”
Tribe’s Congress

Tribe wrote his initial commentary on the Constitution in 1978 call “American Constitutional Law”. With this initial commentary, Tribe ascended to the throne and since has been the liberal’s commandant in their efforts to over throw capitalism and our Republic’s Judeo Christian heritage through backdoor congressional activist legislation.

In 1987, Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote a review of Scalia’s book, A Matter of Interpretation. Scalia’s book expounds on the ‘textualist’ theory and his qualities as a judicial ‘statesman’. Neither of which is Tribe.

Greve writes that Tribe is [n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before and that [T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes.
Enter Liberal Left Election Activism Through Legislation

Of Tribe’s most notable influences on congressional committee hearings are those during the Nixon & Clinton impeachment hearings, The Gore/Bush election & most currently the judiciary committee hearings on S. Res. 511:

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

There are many more areas where tribe’s activist views have been sought to pass radical legislation, however, for the purposes of this series, we shall stick to the topic at hand.

I can not say with certainty when it all began; but the legislative moves to forever redefine/remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ as it exists in the founding documents of the United States of America, have been going on far longer than I had thought.

Not only have they moved to redefine/remove it from the Constitution, they have actively been bestowing ‘natural born’ citizenship status on individual citizens for decades through ‘private’ laws.

A search of Thomas.gov revealed that since 1973. Congress has bestowed ‘natural born’ citizenship 13 times through this ‘private law’ practice. I was only able to retrieve the basics, as I assume, the fact that they are ‘private law’ bills, the contents are sealed, and therefore not available to the public. This is as specific as they get, no congressional committee minutes are available through Thomas.gov:

Title: A bill for the relief of Phillip Harper. Became Private Law No. 98-39 (1983)
In 1987, a bill was introduced which was entitled, ‘The overseas American Children’s Human Right’s Act of 1987’. The summary concludes that children born outside of the US to mixed parents (one being an alien) shall be a U.S. citizen at birth and then goes on to grant US national and natural born citizen status to any person born, whether in or out of wedlock, to a US citizen parent outside the United States.

This bill as far as I can tell never made it out of committee. A similar bill appeared in 1989 that met the same demise.

Were these bills a precursor for the currently behind closed committee door activism in Congress? Were they Congresses initial ‘baby steps’ towards the ultimate destruction of the ‘natural born’ citizen?

From 1973 – current, attempts have been made to remove ‘natural born’ from Article II of the Constitution. Additional attempts have also been made to formally define/change the meaning of ‘natural born’, therefore opening the door for any and all citizens to be able to run for President, regardless of their type of citizenship.
Committee minutes from the earlier days are nil, thus lending me to believe no merit was given to the early attempts. However, the sponsor of the earliest 6 amendments from 1973-77 was Rep. Jonathan B. Bingham (NY). Jonathan Bingham was a Connecticut Bingham and I do not know at this time if there is a direct relation to Rep. John A Bingham who was one of the founders of the 14th Amendment that left this famous quote which is recorded in congressional records for all time:

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Coincidence? I think not. To believe that a representative with the same family surname, a surname of a long historical list of politicians dating back to the revolution, was not aware or had studied the congressional records during the drafting of the 14th Amendment would be naïve.

These early attempts, that are still available to be retrieved online at Thomas.gov, also coincide with the appearance of Laurence Tribe onto the scene that had this to say about natural born citizen:

“The Framers substituted the word ‘citizen’ for ‘subject’ to reflect the shift from a monarchy to democracy”

Well, had the Framers actually adopted a Constitution for a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic, Tribe may have been right. This is also just one tiny example of his influence on Congress over the past several decades of Constitutional abuse.

From 1973 – current, there have been 15 silent secret attempts to remove the words ‘natural born’ from the Constitution and replace them with just citizen. It is the ideology of the leftist-liberals that the words ‘natural born’ are discriminatory and therefore keep naturalized citizens and those born with dual citizenship from their imaginary right to be president.

Part II to come: Breaking down of the most current secret legislation proposed from 2000-08.
Part III will focus specifically on S. Res. 511 and Tribe’s extensive influence in Congresses cover-up of ineligible presidential candidates that continues to this day.
Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher
http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com
Copyright 2009

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wor...eral-activism/

Eric Holder Urged Progressives to 'Advance the Cause,' Bring About a 'Liberal Renaissance'

by JOHN SEXTON
25 Sep 2014
Despite some claims to the contrary today, Eric Holder was a committed progressive who saw himself as fighting a battle for the "soul of the nation" in hopes that a "liberal renaissance" would took place.

After word broke that Eric Holder would resign as Attorney General today, at least one high profile media observer, Chuck Todd, suggested he was "a very nonpolitical person." This seemed so far off base that I assumed Chuck Todd's comments were being misunderstood. Maybe what he'd intended to say was Holder was such an ardent progressive that he wasn't always a very good politician. But when confronted on this point, Todd affirmed that he'd meant just what he said, i.e. Holder wasn't as political as people assumed.

@AceofSpadesHQ huh? Weird attack. He was politically naive. By "apolitical" I meant he wasn't thinking as partisan as his critics thought

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) September 25, 2014

In fact, there is plenty of evidence of how Holder's partisanship. He saw his role in government as fighting the long battle for progressive values against conservatives who he most often defined as fear-mongers. It's not necessary to guess what Holder believed one merely has to read the transcript of a speeches he gave to the progressive American Constitution Society in 2003 and 2004. Holder's 2003speech opens:

We are engaged in a battle for the soul of our nation. We are at a critical time in that battle. This country can take one of two paths over the coming years. We can continue down the road that threatens our civil liberties while not truly protecting us, down the road that challenges women’s rights in the reproductive choices they make, down the road where the environment in which our children will live will be degraded, down the road that will not take us back- but take us to a place where this nation has never been before. There is an alternative to the fear, the mistrust, that seems to drive so much of our conservative brethren’s agenda. That alternative, that other path, is rooted in our Constitution and found in the work of progressive men and women throughout our history. That other path runs right through the American Constitution Society.

And Holder made no pretense of what the ACS was about. A few paragraphs later he calls it, "a mechanism for the development of progressive/liberal ideas." Holder closed his 2003 speech with another reference to the battle for the soul of the nation and a call to progressives to use the power they have or "will acquire" to advocate for a "new America."

We are engaged in a battle for the soul, the heart, of this nation. I urge all of you to use your formidable skills and the power that you have, or will acquire, to make this nation better. As the inheritors of the liberal/progressive tradition this is our duty. I urge all of you to play key roles in the coming years in advocating for both a new agenda and a new America.

Holder returned to the ACS podium in 2004 and recalled his rhetoric of the previous year. Again, note the use of "we" to indicate that Holder himself is one of those engaged in the partisan battle.

Now when I spoke to you last year, I said that we were engaged in a battle for the soul of our nation. That battle continues today, and if anything, has become even more consequential. The arrogance of our conservative brethren in the exercise of the power that they temporarily hold is breathtaking. From redistricting schemes, to attacks on abortion rights, to energy policies that are as shortsighted as they are ineffective, to tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation, the conservative movement has been unafraid to push the limits in advancing this agenda. Now we need not be as arrogant as those on the right, but we must be mindful of their passion in achieving their goals. We must be equally passionate. We must be more committed, and we must be unexpectedly disciplined in our efforts.

A few paragraphs later he even works in an attack on Fox News [emphasis added]:

With the mainstream media somewhat cowered by conservative critics, and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner, and you know what I mean there, the means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.

The speech ends, once again, with a call to arms [emphasis added]:

Quite simply, it is time to act. It is time to organize. It is time to retake the levers of government and to use them for the common good. It is time, finally, to be true to our ideological heritage. And so my challenge to you tonight is to leave this convention renewed in your convictions, and committed to using your abundant talents for the good of the citizens of this country.

At the end of every week, I want you to ask yourselves, what have I done in the past seven days to advance the cause? How have I made more likely this liberal renaissance? In doing so, you will help to solve the national problems, old and new, that are at issue.

Replace "progressive" with "conservative" and this is a speech that Rush Limbaugh could give. Apolitical? Not thinking as a partisan? Granted these speeches were given several years before Holder became Attorney General in 2009, but that was several years after he worked as Deputy Attorney General for Bill Clinton. This is, simply put, a very partisan individual. If there is evidence that he stopped thinking like this over the past five years, Chuck Todd ought to offer it. There are all sorts of reasons not to take his word for it.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2...al-Renaissance

Quote:

---

"What, then, explains this decision? Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore . . . . By making this judgment, these justices have failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality . . . .

---

The actual breakdown of religious beliefs on the US Supreme Court at least today are 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews. There are no protestants on the US Supreme Court even though only 25.6% of the US population are Catholic 23.9% or Jewish 1.7%. Of the other 74.4%, the population is either Protestant, Mormon, Other Christian, Unaffiliated, Unspecified, None, Muslim or Buddhist.

http://www.factmonster.com/us/supreme-court/supreme-court-members.html

Quote:

---

US - CIA People and Society

Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)

---

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html

One has to remember that in the course of our history, "scholars" have played little to no valuable role in the development of our nation. As sad as that fact is, it is a fact nonetheless. It was "scholars" for example whose writings perpetuated slavery in the United States, and it was ordinary people who simply knew right from wrong and who were willing to risk their lives, families and property for right, who ended it. Illegal immigration is today's modern version of slavery, it is wrong on all levels, both for the illegal aliens who come here and the Americans they displace economically. Any "religion", "business" or group of "scholars" who want to sacrifice Americans for "strangers" invading our nation are simply cut from the same cloth as the proponents and "scholars" who promoted and perpetuated slavery.