Court's 'Unconstitutional' Executive Amnesty Opinion 'Good Sign' #Obama #Law

40

0

by CAROLINE MAY17 Dec 201433

The recent court opinion declaring portions of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration to be “unconstitutional” bodes well for future litigation against the president’s recent order, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte tells Breitbart News. 

Tuesday, District Court Judge Arthur Schwab ruled that aspects of Obama’s executive actions go “beyond prosecutorial discretion” to actually legislating. He made these judgments as part of an opinion dealing with a criminal case.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” Schwab wrote.

In a statement to Breitbart News, Goodlatte — whose committee has jurisdiction over immigration matters — said he agreed with Schwab’s analysis and expressed optimism about future court challenges to Obama’s executive actions. 

“I agree with Judge Schwab that President Obama’s unilateral rewriting of our immigration laws violates the separation of powers and the President’s duty to enforce the law,” the Virginia lawmaker said. “This ruling is a good sign for the states’ lawsuit challenging President Obama’s unilateral, unconstitutional actions.”

Goodlatte continued, saying that when Congress returns next year it must look at all options to take on Obama’s executive actions.

“Congress will continue fighting the President’s actions early next year and should consider all the tools it has at its disposal, including potential litigation. Additionally, I am hopeful that the states will be successful in their effort to stop the President’s actions from being implemented.”

Goodlatte recently signed on to an amicus brief the conservative American Center for Law and Justice submitted Tuesday in support of the recent lawsuit 24 states have filed challenging Obama’s executive amnesty. 

“The President’s executive overreach on immigration must be stopped,” he stressed Tuesday in announcing his support of the brief.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Congress, Bob Goodlatte

#PJNET #OBAMA Amnesty BLOCKED by FED COURT !!!

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Updated:2:27 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2015

A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

---

PHOTOS: See Obama's biggest White House fails

---

Mr. Obama had acted in November to try to grant tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, saying he was tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The full amnesty had been scheduled to begin last week, while an earlier part had been slated to accept applications on Feb. 18. But just two days before that, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued his injunction finding that Mr. Obama had broken the law.

http://goo.gl/EooMff

Please RT - THANKS!

The 5th Amendment: Procedural Protections for Natural Rights

march 17, 2014 by david j. shestokas

filed under: constitution educational series tagged with: amendment, bill of rights,civil rights, constitution, criminal law, felony, fifth amendment, grand jury, legal process, miranda, natural law, supreme court

The First United States Congress proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution in 1789. The states ratified ten of the proposed amendments:The Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment contains five procedural rights. If the government seeks to take someone’s life, liberty or property it must follow the Fifth Amendment’s rules.

The Fifth Amendment

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Protecting “Inalienable Rights” with the Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment’s first four rights define procedures involvinggrand juries, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and due process. These procedures are to protect a person’s life and liberty from government action. The fifth procedure is designed to protect property, preventing the government from taking property without compensation to the owner.

The Fifth Amendment’s protections for life, liberty and property exist to limit the government’s interference with the inalienable natural rights of the Declaration of Independence.John Locke, the philosophical father of the Declaration, defined the right to benefit from one’s labor, that is to own property,¹ as the third inalienable right. Thomas Jefferson substituted “pursuit of happiness” for “property” in writing the Declaration.²

Grand Juries Place Citizens Between the Government and the Accused

Grand juries were enshrined in English law by the Magna Carta in 1215. The purpose was to place a group of citizens between those accused of a crime and prosecution by the King. Grand jury protections came to be viewed as a citizen’s shield from improper government prosecutions.

The Fifth Amendment requires that before the federal government³ can prosecute someone for a felony (capital, or otherwise infamous crime) it must present the evidence to a grand jury.⁴ A prosecutor presents evidence to a group of citizens (grand jurors) and those citizens determine, by a majority, if the government has enough evidence to indict (accuse) and prosecute someone for a crime.

http://goo.gl/VLtk2Q

Please RT

#OBAMA SUBVERTS CONSTITUTION TO ACHIEVE #IRAN DEAL ! @Breitbart

by BEN SHAPIRO16 Mar 2015648

Over the weekend, top Democrats went berserk over Senator Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) open letter to the Iranian regime warning them that President Obama’s executive agreement with them was not the final legal word. Obama said at the Gridiron Dinner, “You don’t diminish your office by taking a selfie. You do it by sending a poorly written letter to Iran. Really. That wasn’t a joke.”

Secretary of State John Kerry said that Cotton’s letter was “unconstitutional” and that “they cannot change an executive agreement.” He continued by saying that the letter was “unprecedented, unprecedented. …It’s false information and directly calculated to interfere, and basically say, ‘Don’t negotiate with them, you’ve got to negotiate with 535 members of Congress.’”

Of course, it is not unprecedented for Congress to involve itself in foreign policy in precisely the way that Cotton and 46 other Republican senators did. And Barack Obama reportedly contacted Iran through back channels before his election to encourage them not to cut a deal with President George W. Bush; he’d be much more helpful to the mullahs after his inevitable election.

But never mind facts. Republicans are “TRAITORS” for having the temerity to teach the Iranian government about the Constitution–because, as Professor John Yoo points out, Cotton and company were exactly right about the fact that executive agreements are not the final word on foreign policy:

The Cotton letter is right, because if President Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran using only instrument (c), he is only committing to refrain from exercising his executive power– i.e., by not attacking Iran or by lifting sanctions under power delegated by Congress. Not only could the next president terminate the agreement; Obama himself could terminate the deal. … Under the Constitution’s Foreign Commerce Clause, only Congress has the authority to impose international economic sanctions. Obama’s executive agreement cannot prevent Congress from imposing mandatory, severe sanctions on Iran without the possibility of presidential waiver (my preferred solution for handling the Iranian nuclear crisis right now).

http://goo.gl/4k5mU1

Please RT

#Constitutional Sound Bites

Available as a PDF download at this link or as a Kindle e-book on Amazon.

How Modern Americans Get Information

In the 21st Century, we’ve become used to getting information in small doses of media sound bites, short blog posts and 140 character Tweets. Modern leaders, understanding mass media, beginning with Franklin Roosevelt, (“A date which will live in infamy…”), through Barack Obama (“I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America…”) have turned this into an art form.

America’s Revolutionary Leaders Had a Different Medium

The leaders of Revolutionary America understood the communications of their day. After the proposed Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787 the battle for ratification began. Much of it took place in the mass media of the 18th Century: newspapers. Long essays appeared around the country.

- See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitutional-sound-bites/#sthash.EsUqop7F.dpuf

Rand Paul: Let's think about judicial activism @WorldNetDaily

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/rand-paul-im-a-judicial-activist/#efCAx0QFbkQAwKGw.99

Obama’s Threat To Change Immigration Laws Without Congress Meets Resistance

Neil Munro

White House Correspondent

• 
  

GOP leaders say President Barack Obama will only make immigration problems worse if he goes ahead with his Monday threat to unilaterally alter the nation’s immigration laws.

“I’m beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress,” Obama said in a Rose Garden speech Monday afternoon.

Deputies will identify “actions my administration can take on our own, within my existing legal authorities, to do what Congress refuses to do and fix as much of our immigration system as we can,” he said.

“I expect their recommendations before the end of summer and I intend to adopt those recommendations without further delay,” he said.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/obamas-threat-to-change-immigration-laws-without-congress-meets-resistance/

http://goo.gl/meUYTa

TweetMe Please  

College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution

Two students at the University of Hawaii at Hilo are suing the school over alleged First Amendment violations after they were told by a campus official that they couldn't approach fellow students to hand out copies of the Constitution.

Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone, members of the campus chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal court, alleging that administrators violated their constitutional rights by stopping group members from passing out copies of the document during an outdoor event in January where student organizations had set up tables to distribute literature. 

Wright Tremaine, the law firm that recently helped a student who was blocked last year from handing out copies of the Constitution win a $50,000 settlement against Modesto Junior College in California.

"So far this academic year, students have twice been prohibited from distributing the Constitution on a public campus, less than four months apart. That is absolutely unacceptable,” said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is assisting with the lawsuit. 

http://goo.gl/6aBWTo

(TweetMe)

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders

BY JOEL GEHRKE | JANUARY 29, 2014 AT 1:56 PM

Attorney General Eric Holder couldn't explain the constitutional basis for executive orders such as President Obama's delay of the employer mandate because he hasn't read the legal analysis -- or at least, hasn't seen it in a long time.

"I'll be honest with you, I have not seen -- I don't remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I'm not sure where along the spectrum that would come," Holder replied when Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked him to explain the nature of Obama's constitutional power to delay the mandate.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/attorney-general-eric-holder-cant-explain-constitutional-basis-for-obamas-executive-orders/article/2543100

Is Obama Failing Constitutional Law?

Talking and tinkering may not be enough to make the old law professor’s surveillance program legal.

By JONATHAN HAFETZ

 

January 17, 2014

In his speech meant to quell concerns over government surveillance, President Obama on Friday offered something of a primer on the history of espionage, from the heroic patrols made by Paul Revere in the Revolution to the sordid eavesdropping the FBI perpetrated against Martin Luther King, Jr.

The history lesson—triggered, of course, by the revelations from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, which laid bare some of how Obama’s government goes about the business of spying—prefaced a series of reform proposals in which the president put himself forward as the Great Balancer, the one who understands the risks and benefits of spying programs, while also remaining mindful of the competing concerns of liberty and security. “We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves,” Obama said, “while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals—and our Constitution—require.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/nsa-speech-and-obamas-troubles-with-con-law-hed-tk-102340.html#ixzz2rFo1bCsJ

Verizon Wants Claims in NSA Surveillance Suit Dismissed

Shortly after a federal judge in Washington ruled that a National Security Agency phone surveillance program is "almost certainly" unconstitutional, Verizon Communications Inc. moved to dismiss claims against the company in the case.

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e2019b0328ea4d9

Hamilton v. Village of Oak Lawn - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, #civilrights, #constitution, #criminal

Hamilton v. Village of Oak Lawn

Docket: 12-3174	Opinion Date: November 20, 2013
Judge: Posner
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Hamilton claimed that Lorincz, dying of Parkinson’s disease, hired her to help him at home. She was a friend of Lorincz’s daughter, a former physician who was serving jail time. After Hamilton had worked 88 hours, Lorincz gave her a check for $10,000. Hamilton told Lorincz’s other adult children, by phone, that their father was dying and had given her a $10,000 check. Knowing that Hamilton had a criminal conviction, they told the police that Hamilton was taking advantage of their impaired father and went to their father’s house. Although Lorincz told the police that he wanted Hamilton to have the money and wanted the police to leave, they remained for about two hours and learned that Hamilton had been a psychologist, but her license had been revoked after her felony conviction for a $435,000 Medicaid fraud, and that Lorincz already had professional home health aides when Hamilton had “rushed” to his side. Hamilton had a history of bizarre lawsuits against government officials. Hamilton claims that the police would not allow her to leave while they were there and, when they left, required her to leave without the check, although she wanted to stay. The district court dismissed her 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit alleging police misconduct. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

http://j.st/yaH
View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar