I hope they shopped for a constitutionalist judge. The one on which they settled was U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Southern District of Texas, a Bush41 appointee (so who knows?), who will hear their case a week from today:
The lawsuit claims that Obama has “unilaterally suspend[ed] the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of the 11 million” illegal aliens in the United States.
They're going with the conservative numbers, I see. Not a promising sign.
The states are requesting that Hanen find that the Department of Homeland Security directives implementing Obama’s plan violate the “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” clause of the Constitution, as well as various provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act because they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and were issued without regulatory authority or the required notice and opportunity for public comment.
A rather self-evident fact, that. But it begs the question of why half the States need a federal court to tell them, and somehow "make official," what Article I, Section 1 and Article II, Section 8 clearly state: "All legislative powers" legally reside in the hands of Congress, not the President, and the latter has the responsibility to "faithfully execute" ALL the laws, regardless of whether or not he agrees with the policy behind them.
Let's say that Judge Hanen can see the nose on his face and rules against the Obama Regime; it is inevitable that the case is going to wind up before the SCOTUS sooner or later, and though in recent times the Justices have attempted to slap down the White House on its more egregious power grabs, who's to say they will on this one? And if they don't, then going through the courts will have made nullification that much more politically difficult because Obamnesty will have been given a judicial seal of approval. Far better to simply nullify it to begin with, hold a joint presser and declare, "Barack Obama has issued his Executive Order, now let him enforce it."
But that just isn't the mentality of public officials today, no matter how conservative and otherwise constitutionalist. Suggesting nullification to State officials is like trying to teach pigs to work Chinese finger puzzles. You'd have better luck turning Rosie O'Donnell into a runway model.
On December 24th, the Justice Department filed a 56-page response on behalf of the administration opposing the request for an injunction and asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of standing because the states cannot “demonstrate that they will suffer a cognizable injury traceable to the deferred action guidance.”
The Justice Department says that all of the increased, substantial costs of law enforcement, education and health care that the states claim will result from the president’s action are mere conjecture and are not sufficient to grant them standing.
The States "don't have standing" to control their own borders on an issue on which the Constitution gives them concurrent jurisdiction. There's a....unique bit 'o "legal" "reasoning" there, folks.
And now they have to hope that Judge Hanen, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (16-8 GOP majority), and the SCOTUS all see it their way, because they have surrendered control of their own territories to those thirty-four people.
By such passivity is the corpse of the Old American Republic stiffening.
No comments:
Post a Comment