Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    PARADISE (San Diego)

    Is the President’s new immigration policy already a constitutional dead letter

    Constitution Check: Is the President’s new immigration policy already a constitutional dead letter?

    By Lyle Denniston 5 hours ago

    Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, explains why the debate over a federal judge’s ruling against President Obama’s immigration policy is more of a political argument, and not a constitutional one.

    View photo
    THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:“President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat, and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks.”
    – Texas Governor Greg Abbott, in a statement on February 17 in reaction to a decision by a federal trial judge in Brownsville, Texas, temporarily blocking the Obama Administration’s new deferred deportation policy, announced last November and due to go into full effect this week.

    “This decision is a victory for the rule of law in America and a crucial first step in reining in President Obama’s lawlessness. The President’s action, both unilateral and unconstitutional, was an affront to everyone pursuing the life of freedom and opportunity in America the right way.”

    – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in a statement on February 17 about the court ruling.

    “The government claims sole authority to govern in the area of immigration, and has exercised that authority by promulgating a complex statutory scheme and prohibiting any meaningful involvement by the states….However, the government has decided that it will not enforce these immigration laws as they apply to well over five million people, plus those who had their applications [to enter the program] denied. If one had to formulate from scratch a fact pattern that exemplified the existence of [a state’s right to sue] due to federal abdication, one could not have crafted a better scenario.”

    – U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, in his 123-page decision on February 16, explaining his ruling to temporarily block the new federal government’s policy of deferring deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. for a period of years.


    To the Founders who wrote the American Constitution, the concept of “abdication” was more familiar to them as what sometimes happened when an English king or queen gave up the crown, under pressure or to hand it on to a favored successor. But the Founders were familiar with the idea of dereliction of duty, and they wrote into the basic document an obligation that would be binding on every president who would thereafter serve.

    That duty is spelled out in Article II, Section 3, declaring that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

    Execution of the laws, they understood, was different from enactment of them; legislating was the duty of Congress. But, over time, “execution” has come to be understood as leaving the president with some discretion – perhaps a lot of discretion — about how to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Indeed, in modern times, presidents have actually signed some legislative bills into law, and simultaneously announced that they would interpret them in ways that did not infringe upon presidential powers. (Right now, for example, the Supreme Court is weighing what to make, constitutionally, of a decision by President George W. Bush in refusing to carry out a law passed by Congress to allow American citizens who were born in Jerusalem to list Israel on their passports as their place of birth – even though Congress had explicitly mandated that.)

    When the state of Texas and 25 other states sued President Obama to challenge his announced new policy of refusing to deport between four and five million individuals living illegally in this country, the states’ strongest claim was that the President had, in fact, failed to “faithfully execute” the nation’s immigration laws – laws which, in fact, demanded that every one of those individuals be deported to their home countries. That was the basis of their argument that Obama had violated the Constitution.

    If the federal judge in Brownsville, Texas, who was assigned to decide that case had accepted that argument, it would, indeed, mean that Obama had adopted an unconstitutional policy. The judge explicitly chose, in order to avoid an unnecessary decision on a basic constitutional question, not to rule on that point. Even so, Judge Hanen found a way to get at the “abdication” theory that lay behind the states’ constitutional argument.

    He declared that, if the federal government owes a duty to protect the citizens of the United States from the harmful effects of illegal immigration (and he ruled that it did have such a duty, assigned by Congress), the states could bring a lawsuit to seek to compel the national government to perform that duty. In other words, they could get into court with their challenge, but not necessarily win on their constitutional argument.

    Along the way, Judge Hanen used language that indicated his clear sympathy with the abdication argument, even as he refrained from finding the President’s policy to be unconstitutional. Instead, taking a legally very narrow approach, the judge decided that – at this point – it seemed clear that the states were likely to win their case ultimately on a theory that the new immigration policy was not put into place by the proper procedural route. That was not a constitutional decision, and, moreover, it was not a sign that the President had abdicated his duty as the chief enforcer of the nation’s laws. The conclusion, though, was sufficient to lead the judge to impose a temporary ban on enforcement of much of the new policy, while the states’ lawsuit moves on to a full trial.

    The Obama Administration has already signaled that it will appeal the judge’s order. And, while the states surely will resist that appeal, they will not be in a position during that process to press again their claim of unconstitutional “abdication” by the President. Appeals courts are confined to reviewing the conclusions of what trial courts actually decided, not the arguments that parties made but were left unresolved.

    Even so, as this legal struggle moves forward, to whatever end, Americans should be prepared to hear more of the challengers’ argument that the President has acted in a way that actually violated the Constitution – as both the Texas governor and the state’s attorney general did in their statements in praise of Judge Hanen’s ruling.

    Americans should recognize that as a political argument, not a constitutional one – at least in the context of this lawsuit.

    Recent Stories On Constitution Daily

    Constitution Check: Is the President’s new immigration policy already a constitutional dead letter?

    50 interesting facts about Abraham Lincoln’s life

    A controversial order leads to internment camps

    Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln: Dueling inaugural addresses


    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.

    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    I think the authors missed the fact that there are two abdications, one in failing to provide notice of his decree in the national register, and another in failing to enforce US immigration law. The third act is the one that will be the primary discussion during the trial, which is the decree itself, which is beyond failing to provide notice of his decree and failing to enforce US immigration law. It is the arguments about the decree itself that will become the primary constitutional issue, which is in sum, does the President of the United States have the legal authority to create new immigrants out of illegal aliens and in numbers that exceed the number of new immigrants allowed by Congress? If the Constitution allowed Presidents discretionary powers to admit more new immigrants through illegal immigration that are allowed by specific statute each year by type and kind, then it would be ridiculous to waste time or money on a legislative branch to determine such matters. No different than the declaration of war provision of the Constitution which states quite clearly that only the US Congress can declare war. If Presidents can start and/or fight more wars through their discretionary powers than those declared by the Cohgress, then why bother having a Congress to declare war? If the Executive Branch can spend money however it wishes in whatever amounts on whatever it wants, then why have a Congressional Appropriation provision of the US Constitution?

    The President has very little discretionary power with regards to lawbreakers. To my knowledge, the sole authority he has with regards to lawbreakers is the Presidential Pardon. If he could on his own grant them amnesty, there would be no purpose to a Pardon clause of the US Constitution. The redundancy would be laughable.

    So, I must disagree with the National Constitution Center. The arguments against Obama Amnesty are not political arguments, they are arguments which represent the guts and soul of the US Constitution. And, I must say that I'm quite disappointed in an organization's view that the states' lawsuit against Obama Amnesty is just politics causing me to wonder what is the National Constitution Center?

    What is the National Constitution Center? Well, it's a US government institution, formed by Congress and signed into law by Ronald Reagan. It's first Chairman was GW Bush, it's current Chairman is Jeb Bush. It's Board of Trustees includes GHW Bush, GW Bush and Bill Clinton.

    So it's no surprise is it that Lyle Denniston who works for the National Constitution Center, who is not a lawyer but a journalist who covers the US Supreme Court, would think or at least write for Yahoo publication, a piece that claims the lawsuit waged by 26 States against the President is just politics, and nothing to be taken seriously as a constitutional matter. I suppose this is the Bush/Clinton way to try to preserve another round of amnesty under the next President, be it a wishfully thinking Jeb Bush or a Hillary Clinton.

    Really, it's time for the Bushes and the Clintons to wake up. If you either one, either family, really believes that the American People aren't sick to their deaths with all of you, then none of you have even 1 live brain cell still connected. We are sick of you, sick to death of you, truly wish none of you had ever entered politics. Your two families have done everything within your powers to destroy our country, to diminish life in America for US citizens, to put our businesses out of business or still in business but with so low profit margins they have to cheat to stay alive. To hell with all of you, and if I had my guess, that's where you'll all end up for what you've done to the United States of America, you with your Wars, Deficits, and Bubbles, your TIN's, Guest Worker Programs, and Illegal Immigration, your Free Trade Treason, floods, terrorists and sperm stains. You're an evil bunch of incompetent boobs that couldn't run a grade school right, let alone the United States. This is not an opinion, oh no, this is already recorded history.

    So, for any of you to be involved with anything remotely akin to the Constitution, let alone a Congressional approved National Constitution Center, would be hilarious and have us all rolling on the floors in laughter, if it weren't first the most tragic and saddest thing our Congress has ever allowed to occur. No politician past, present,or future should ever be involved with the National Constitution Center, let alone Chair or serve on the Board of Trustees. And the reason for this is as obvious as your names, it's called conflict of interest, i. e. power-grabbing for the Executive Branch. And wow, did Lyle let that cat out of the bag! For that we thank him, even though his article written on your behalves was a piece of junk.

    Republicans, it's time to kick Jeb Bush to the peanut gallery and get him out of the race for President. Don't invite him anywhere, shun him when he shows up, give him no money, shun those who do, and of course don't vote for him on any poll or in any primary. We've been Bushwhacked enough already.

    Last edited by Judy; 02-19-2015 at 08:18 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2014, 07:09 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-17-2013, 12:34 PM
  3. A letter from a Constitutional sheriff
    By kathyet in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 10:09 AM
  4. Fitzpatrick Signs Letter to President Regarding Immigration
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2011, 12:51 AM
  5. Gulf Coast: Dead Oysters, Dead Jobs, Dead Policy
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 06:56 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts