Posts Tagged ‘unconstitutional’
As the potential harm of the President Obama’s amnesty bid for possibly more than 5 million illegal aliens residing in the United States becomes clearer, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are continuing to speak out against his unilateral action to try to remake America.
Joe R. Hicks, former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference:
President Obama strode into the White House promising to give the American people the audacity of hope. What we are witnessing instead, with his immigration agenda, is an audacious grab for power and an evisceration of the Constitution.
Having kicked the can down the road, obviously refusing to ruin his own chances for re-election in 2012, and tap-dancing on the issue until after the 2014 mid-term elections, Obama now disdainfully punches the amnesty card for upwards of five million illegal residents with the knowledge that almost half of all Americans polled oppose his maneuver.
With the stroke of a pen, Obama rewards those who arrogantly mock our border laws while simultaneously telling those hopeful immigrants still waiting patiently to lawfully come to America that they are chumps.
After these five million or so, what then? The magnet that draws illegal immigrants across the border just got stronger. They will come expecting, — no, demanding — to get “Obama’s amnesty.”
In 2010, defending his inaction on immigration issues, Obama said, “I’m president, I’m not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” That’s all changed, and the Constitution lies in tatters as a result.
Read more by David W. Almasi at ConservativeBlog.org
BERLIN — PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.
Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.
Read more by BRUCE ACKERMAN at NYTimes.com
Sessions: ‘Obama Has Openly Reaffirmed His Unconstitutional Plan to Nullify Our Nation’s Sovereign Laws’
Senator Jeff Sessions issues this statement in response to President Obama’s decision to wait until after the mid-term election to take action on immigration by executive order.
“President Obama has openly reaffirmed his unconstitutional plan to nullify our nation’s sovereign laws, issuing executive amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants. In so doing, he will wipe away American workers’ lawful immigration protections. Illegal workers will be instantly allowed to take precious jobs directly from struggling Americans in every occupation in America. Countless more unlawful workers will pour across the border and overstay their visas. These executive actions will incentivize a tsunami of illegality,” reads Sessions’s statement.
Read more by Daniel Halper at WeeklyStandard.com
Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are suing President Obama for his unconstitutional overreach and abuse of power.
This Imperial President’s unprecedented disregard for the Constitution and desire for more power has reached a new low.
Obama has ignored and selectively enforced the law. And he has repeatedly created new laws unilaterally. It’s unconstitutional — it must be stopped.
President Obama has:
* Unconstitutionally made radical changes to ObamaCare
* Unconstitutionally forced through job killing new EPA regulations on the American people
* Unconstitutionally increased what taxpayers pay to federal contractors
* Unconstitutionally waived the statutory work requirements for welfare
* Unconstitutionally created bureaucratic programs not authorized by Congress
It’s time we stand up to President Obama — and it’s time we stop his total disregard for the Constitution and rule of law.
The U.S. Constitution outright declares that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Yet, President Obama has not.
That is why House Republicans are launching a lawsuit against President Obama. And we need you by our side.
If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.
Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that “Congress shall have the Power To… establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.
The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama’s refusal to execute Congress’s immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for… Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, “treason,” and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered “bribery.”
Read more by Michael Filozof at American Thinker June 16, 2012
The Republican congressman who walked out during President Obama’s State of the Union address January 28, Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas, has announced that he is considering filing articles of impeachment against the president.
“I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers,” Stockman said in a statement he issued following the president’s speech. He also posted the statement on his Senate campaign website, where he asked voters to register whether they are for or against impeaching the president.
Read more by Jack Kenny at TheNewAmerican.com
The bargain rushed through Congress on Wednesday night clobbers the U.S. Constitution. It shifts control over the debt ceiling from Congress to the president, in violation of Article 1, Section 8, and pushes the nation toward a slippery slope of allowing the president unlimited power to borrow.
Article 1, Section 8, states that “Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . .. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States … “
Until 1917, the president had to ask Congress’ permission for each borrowing and frequently acquiesced to conditions. That year, Congress devised the debt ceiling, which gave the president flexibility to borrow up to a certain amount in order to fund a world war.
Ever since then, presidents have come to Congress once or twice a year for a debt-ceiling hike. Until this year, Congress had never abdicated control over the nation’s indebtedness.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can’t surrender its powers to another branch of government or change how laws are made (INS v. Chadha, 1983). But that’s what the deal concocted Wednesday night does.
Instead of raising the debt ceiling, the Default Prevention Act of 2013 suspends it and shifts power to the president to determine how much the nation should borrow.
Read More By BETSY MCCAUGHEY At Investor’s Business Daily
Old-time monarchies and modern dictators govern by decree. Not so in the United States, where the Constitution does not give the president such power. So it is fair to wonder what authorized President Obama to “suspend” the portion of the Affordable Care Act that imposes a health-care mandate on employers.
Read more by Ronald D. Rotunda at WashingtonPost.com
Is it time for me to recant? Earlier this year, I was highly critical of conservatives who embraced a strategy of “nullification” of federal laws they disliked, including Obamacare:
The legislators also went all 19th Century on us by embracing the principle of “nullification” an idea that has enjoyed pretty much complete obscurity since the U.S. Civil war. (The idea, repeatedly rejected by the courts, is that states can nullify federal laws they deem unconstitutional.
Read more by Charlie Sykes at 620wtmj.com
When British soldiers were roaming the American countryside in the 1760s with lawful search warrants with which they had authorized themselves to enter the private homes of colonists in order to search for government-issued stamps, Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” The soul-searching became a revolution in thinking about the relationship of government to individuals. That thinking led to casting off a king and writing a Constitution.
What offended the colonists when the soldiers came legally knocking was the violation of their natural right to privacy, their right to be left alone. We all have the need and right to be left alone. We all know that we function more fully as human beings when no authority figure monitors us or compels us to ask for a permission slip. This right comes from within us, not from the government.
Read more by Judge Andrew Napolitano at avoiceofsanity.com
When even Zee Germans are staring open-mouthed at what they call “American-style Stasi methods” you know things have got a little out of hand. As Reuters reports, German outrage over a U.S. Internet spying program has broken out ahead of a visit by Barack Obama, with ministers demanding the president provide a full explanation when he lands in Berlin next week and one official likening the tactics to those of the East German Stasi. “The more a society monitors, controls and observes its citizens, the less free it is,” Merkel’s Justice Minister exclaimed, adding, “the suspicion of excessive surveillance of communication is so alarming that it cannot be ignored.” While Obama has defended it as a “modest encroachment” on privacy and reassured Americans that no one is listening to their phone calls, the Germans reflect “I thought this era had ended when the DDR fell.”
Read more at ZeroHedge.com
“The Stasi only dreamed of these capabilities.”
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who introduced the PATRIOT Act on the House floor in 2001, has declared that lawmakers’ and the executive branch’s excuses about recent revelations of NSA activity are “a bunch of bunk.”
In an interview on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Wednesday morning, the Republican congressman from Wisconsin reiterated his concerns that the administration and the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court have gone far beyond what the PATRIOT Act intended. Specifically, he said that Section 215 of the act “was originally drafted to prevent data mining” on the scale that’s occurred.
Read more by Lindsey Grudnicki at NationalReview.com
Would you be willing to give up what Edward Snowden has given up? He has given up his high paying job, his home, his girlfriend, his family, his future and his freedom just to expose the monolithic spy machinery that the U.S. government has been secretly building to the world. He says that he does not want to live in a world where there isn’t any privacy. He says that he does not want to live in a world where everything that he says and does is recorded. Thanks to Snowden, we now know that the U.S. government has been spying on us to a degree that most people would have never even dared to imagine.
Read more by Michael Snyder at TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com
Tuesday’s stunning decision by a Milwaukee County circuit court judge that Milwaukee’s taxicab ordinance is unconstitutional could provide some impetus to a plan touted by Ald. Bob Bauman.
Bauman, whose district includes the city’s downtown area, wants to increase the number of taxicab permits in the city, but it would also update vehicle standards and increase inspections. Bauman’s plan is expected to be discussed at 9 a.m. on Thursday at City Hall.
Bauman said Wednesday that Circuit Court Judge Jane Carroll’s decision “reinforces our need to move forward with some reforms.”
Read more by Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel
–SNIP– In one case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Justice Department argued it “had the right to oversee a church’s choosing of ministers,” which even Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan called “amazing.”
Cruz highlights one exchange between Kagan and Leondra Kruger, a DOJ lawyer, in which Kagan asked, “Do you believe, Ms. Kruger, that a church has a right that’s grounded in the Free Exercise Clause and/or the Establishment Clause to institutional autonomy with respect to its employees?”
“We don’t see that line of church autonomy principles in the Religious Clause jurisprudence as such,” Kruger said.
Kagan, who served as Solicitor General under Obama, said it was “amazing” that DOJ believed that “neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause has anything to say about a church’s relationship with its own employees.”
The court went on to unanimously reject the DOJ’s claim, saying, “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”
Read more by Elizabeth Harrington at CNSnews.com