House Republicans may be flinching from using the constitutional means at their disposal to combat Barack Obama's illegal amnesty usurpation, but a third of the Founders of the U.S. Constitution, led by Texas Governor-Elect Greg Abbott, sure aren't - although their chosen means isn't the best course of action:
[Texas] is joined by sixteen other mostly conservative ones, largely in the south and Midwest, such as Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and the Carolinas. They aren’t seeking monetary damages, but instead want the courts to block Obama’s actions.
While Abbott had pledged for weeks that his state would sue, the span of the coalition Texas put together surprised both proponents and opponents of the executive order.
Announced November 20th, Obama’s order extends protection from deportation and the right to work to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the country for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.
The lawsuit raises two major objections: that Obama violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which Abbott said limits the scope of presidential power, and that the order will “exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education.”
Abbott said it’s up to the president to “execute the law, not de facto make law.”
And, of course, Governor-Elect Abbott is absolutely right about that. But I cannot help but ask what the outcome was of the multi-State lawsuits seeking to block ObamaCare. "Obviously" the Individual Mandate is a fine, a penalty for not purchasing health insurance as the UCLA requires Americans to do, and thus flagrantly unconstitutional, yes? Well, yes, but that's not how Chief Justice John Roberts and the Obamunist bloc of the SCOTUS saw it, and then 51% of the electorate went on to re-elect ObamaCare's namesake. In the same way, while I fervently hope that Governor-Elect Abbott and his "coalition" allies have done a good and thorough job of judge-shopping, they can hardly count upon a federal judiciary that Barack Obama has had six years to pack with robed oligarchists at all levels to dispassionately apply the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, or see his unlawful amnesty diktat as "obviously" unconstitutional.
I hope and pray they do. But what happens if O's illegal amnesty is upheld? The answer is, well, "obvious": nullification. Simply do not cooperate with The One's unlawful order. They're not legally compelled to do so, and still less with regard to an order that is not legally authorized. Plus, the States do have constitutionally concurrent jurisdiction on immigration matters alongside the feds, so they can simply enforce immigration laws within their respective borders as the Obama Regime will not. And when, as illustrated in Arizona's attempt at this, the Obama Injustice, Revenge & Coverup Commissariat countersues under the Supremacy Clause and wins, again, simply refuse to cooperate. Nullify it. And stop conceding to the federal courts the "judicial review" power that Article III does not grant them.
This is what nobody but us constitutionalists appear to understand: There is no low-key (Loki?), painless, amicable way to take back from Barack Obama the power he has seized, and is seizing as we speak. It is, and will be, a political war. And the longer We, The People wait, the more likely it is that it will become a literal second Civil War.
And understand, this is coming from someone who believes it's already too late, that we crossed that Rubicon two years ago. Which underscores the impracticability of kicking the proverbial can down the road that has already ended in a more-than-metaphorical brick wall.
We no longer have the luxury of "business as usual," gentlebeings. The Republic has already fallen, no matter how much y'all don't want to admit it. The $18 trillion question to us all, then, is, what are we willing to do to have a prayer of getting it back if a judge doesn't do it for us?
Bonus exit question: And if a judge does do it for us, what makes anybody believe that Barack Obama will comply?
No comments:
Post a Comment