The States have the constitutional authority to protect their interior from illegal aliens, and President Barack Obama does not have the constitutional authority to legislate from the White House. It is unconstitutional for Obama to unilaterally enact immigration policy without even a consideration from Congress, as per Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff" understands the constitutional realities regarding immigration law, so he filed a lawsuit against President Barack Obama, and his executive actions on immigration in November. In response, Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the sheriff's demand for an injunction, indicating that Arpaio lacks legal standing in the case.
The courts are not the proper battlefield to fight against the unconstitutional actions of the federal government because the courts are complicit, and cannot be trusted, and because they lack the constitutional authority regarding these cases. The authority to be deciding if a law is constitutional or not does not even lie with the courts. In the end, the final arbiters of the Constitution is "We the People," and the States; therefore, the State of Arizona, or any of the States, for that matter, simply need to nullify Obama's unconstitutional orders. To nullify, all the States must do is refuse to implement Obama's unconstitutional immigration policies as dictated by the executive branch.
Arpaio's own policies regarding immigration, and the Arizona immigration law as originally written, before the federal courts began to unconstitutionally pick it apart, have been working, reducing the influx of illegal aliens into Arizona. The State of Arizona, and the county sheriffs, as the people's last elected line of defense against a federal government disregarding the Constitution, have every constitutional right to protect the citizens of their State against the illegal alien invasion. The federal government cannot legally force a State to lay itself bare and vulnerable against the incoming invasion.
This is where people like Sheriff Arpaio have to understand that the court system is not the way to do it. The way to force the federal government into constitutional compliance is through grassroots movements, and nullification by the States refusing to implement unconstitutional federal dictates.
President Obama bypassing Congress over and over on a number of issues, with the latest being his unilateral immigration reform push, has created a showdown with the Republican Party that contradicts Obama's 2008 accusations that President George W. Bush was acting unconstitutionally by bypassing Congress (which was a false accusation at that). The GOP, who will enjoy a full majority in both Houses of Congress in 2015, says that the expansion of the executive branch under Obama has gone too far, but has offered little in the way of how they plan to reel him in.
Obama denies that his unilateral changes to immigration is amnesty, and his minions argue that Obama's actions were lawful, citing past "precedent" - or to better explain it, if past Presidents have acted unconstitutionally, the action becomes constitutional, and sets a precedent for later presidents to do the same.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This is where people like Sheriff Arpaio have to understand that the court system is not the way to do it. The way to force the federal government into constitutional compliance is through grassroots movements, and nullification by the States refusing to implement unconstitutional federal dictates.
President Obama bypassing Congress over and over on a number of issues, with the latest being his unilateral immigration reform push, has created a showdown with the Republican Party that contradicts Obama's 2008 accusations that President George W. Bush was acting unconstitutionally by bypassing Congress (which was a false accusation at that). The GOP, who will enjoy a full majority in both Houses of Congress in 2015, says that the expansion of the executive branch under Obama has gone too far, but has offered little in the way of how they plan to reel him in.
Obama denies that his unilateral changes to immigration is amnesty, and his minions argue that Obama's actions were lawful, citing past "precedent" - or to better explain it, if past Presidents have acted unconstitutionally, the action becomes constitutional, and sets a precedent for later presidents to do the same.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment