Why have our Governors not filed for an injunction against Obama's refugee plan?
What troubles me at this time is why the States who object to Obama flooding their State with unwanted "refugees" AKA immigrants, are not in Court and filing for an injunction to stop Obama's unconstitutional actions which threaten the general welfare of the United States and the America People's safety.
Keep in mind a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the Obama administration’s controversial immigration program, upholding a lower court's injunction barring the plan from taking effect while awaiting the outcome of a full trial on the lawsuit's underlying arguments. One of the reasons for granting the injunction was the devastating effects thrust upon the States without their permission.
It's time for the Governors who object to Obama's plan to go into Court and Stop Obama's arbitrary decision to import thousands of refugees who cannot be vetted which in turn poses a very real threat to the American People as witnessed in Paris.
JWK
The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.
Is FoxNews carrying water for Obama and his unconstitutional refugee plan?
I have noticed over the past few days that FoxNews has stepped up its unsubstantiated assertion that our federal government has exclusive power over a States' immigration policy. Of course, FoxNews continually fails to support its contention by pointing to the words in our Constitution under which the various states delegated this alleged power to our federal government. Seems that FoxNews is following a very old and tired tactic, that if you repeat a lie over and over people will begin to believe it’s the truth.
I expect this tactic to be used by the Government’s loyalist main stream media, but thought FoxNews was “fair and balanced” in its reporting. But, it is becoming more apparent as each day passes that FoxNews has joined our main stream media in repeating a big lie ___ that our founding fathers delegated a power to Congress to assume the various state’s original power to set immigration policy as each state originally saw fit.
But the truth is found in Article 1, Section 9, under which Congress was granted a limited power over the importation of foreigners. That limited power allows Congress to impose a tax or duty on the importation of foreigners, but leaves the States otherwise free to admit whom they please.
The wording referred to in Article 1, Section 9 is as follows:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
So, the challenge to FoxNew is, please point to the wording in our Constitution under which the States delegated the power to Congress to set a state’s immigration policy.
JWK
"TheConstitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law, 1858.
Who has power to regulate a state’s immigration? The question remains!
I'm still waiting for someone at FoxNews to quote the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees".
I certainly cannot find a power delegated to Congress or the President in our written Constitution repealing a power exercised by the States under the Articles of Confederation during which time each state was free to regulate immigration into their own state. But there is an exception made to this power under our existing Constitution which the States knowingly and willingly greed to ___ the exception being Article 1, Section 9, which reads:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
The above delegated power allows Congress to lay a tax or duty on the importation of foreigners, but leaves each State otherwise free to admit whom they please and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State's interests, general welfare and safety.
So, the question remains, under what wording in our Constitution has Congress or the president been delegated a power to admit tens of thousands, or even millions of poverty stricken or destitute foreigners on to American soil and then require unwilling states to accept them?
Let us recall what Chief Justice Marshall emphasized while the ink was barely dry on our existing Constitution:
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
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
FoxNews not so "fair and balanced" when it comes to our Constitution's intent
It is very telling that not one personality at FoxNews, which has repeatedly asserted over the years that our federal government has exclusive power over immigration, has yet to point to the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees" or the tens of millions of poverty stricken poorly education and low skilled populations of Mexico and Central America.
JWK
The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.
Obama begs Supreme Court to intervene in Texas v. U.S., amnesty case
SEE: Obama’s Unilateral Immigration Amnesty Plan Gets to the Supreme Court
"On Friday, the U.S. Justice Department filed a 35-page petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Texas v. U.S., the case filed by 26 states against President Obama’s immigration amnesty plan.
The government is appealing a preliminary injunction that stopped implementation of Obama’s amnesty plan, which was issued by a federal district court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 9."
JWK
The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.
Texas AG folds like cheap suit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JohnDoe2
The Texas AG put on a good show, but seems to be working in concert with Obama to allow these unwanted foreigners to enter Texas.
The fact is, our President is not authorized under the Constitution to compel a state to accept unwanted foreigners. The States have never ceded their original policing powers over immigration, and a power not delegated is a power retained!
Additionally, the argument that Texas "has made no showing that these refugees pose any threat, much less an imminent one, to the safety or security of Texas residents or any other Americans," is not a legal argument indicating a State must accept them. Every state is free to adopt their own rules in this regard and our federal courts are not authorized to second guess policy decisions made by a state! This rule was confirmed by our very own Supreme Court!
…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. ELDRED etal. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
Why is the Texas AG folding like a cheap suit?
JWK
When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?