[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children

Is the Wailing Wall Actually a Roman Fort?

Israelis Persecute Americans

Israelis SHOCKED The World Hates Them

Ghost Dancers and Democracy: Tucker Carlson

Amalek (Enemies of Israel) 100,000 Views on Bitchute

ICE agents pull screaming illegal immigrant influencer from car after resisting arrest

Aaron Lewis on Being Blacklisted & Why Record Labels Promote Terrible Music

Connecticut Democratic Party Holds Presser To Cry About Libs of TikTok

Trump wants concealed carry in DC.

Chinese 108m Steel Bridge Collapses in 3s, 16 Workers Fall 130m into Yellow River

COVID-19 mRNA-Induced TURBO CANCERS.

Think Tank Urges Dems To Drop These 45 Terms That Turn Off Normies

Man attempts to carjack a New Yorker


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: Judge Nap: 'Rare Ruling Against Obama Could Delay Amnesty Forever'
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/ ... as-immigration-amnesty-forever
Published: Feb 18, 2015
Author: .
Post Date: 2015-02-18 01:35:36 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 1289
Comments: 90

Judge Andrew Napolitano said today that a new federal court ruling could actually delay President Obama's immigration amnesty "forever."

On FBN's "Varney & Co.," the judge explained the meaning behind the new ruling that temporarily blocks the implementation of Obama's executive actions on immigration.

The ruling came late Monday after 26 states asked the court to delay the implementation until after the conclusion of a lawsuit challenging the legality of Obama's orders.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen granted the preliminary injunction Monday after hearing arguments in Brownsville, Texas, last month. He wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case."

"The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action.

The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.

Napolitano called Hanen's ruling "rare," saying one federal judge usually does not decide to stop the president from doing something. He said it's more common for a federal judge to let an appeals court decide.

"You could count on one hand the number of times a single federal judge has done this to a President of the United States since World War II and you would not use all your fingers," he said.

The case now moves to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that covers New Orleans and Houston.

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

"The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

#3. To: James Deffenbach (#0) (Edited)

Napolitano called Hanen's ruling "rare"...

Rarer still is a judge granting States standing to bring suit over a clearly delineated reserved power...even more puzzling is that he based his ruling on an unrelated law, i.e. The Administrative Procedures Act, rather than an issue of either constitutional authority, i.e. issuing an Executive Order, which is what was actually challenged, or the actual law itself, i.e. Title 8 Section 212.5...those facts underscore the activist nature of the decision...

war  posted on  2015-02-18   10:27:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: war (#3)

Rarer still is a judge granting States standing to bring suit over a clearly delineated reserved power..

Lol, you are funny!

So, the president is the one who makes law? Not congress? Is that your clearly delineated power?

Friggen unbelievable.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-18   12:03:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Dead Culture Watch (#5)

So, the president is the one who makes law?

The President is the one who executes the law. In this particular case, the law (Title 8 Section 212.5) allows an agent of the executive branch (which is headed by the POTUS) to parole any alien in to the US and having been granted parole, apply for a work permit.

Again, this decision was not based upon any Constitutional issue; it was based upon a wholly contrived violation of The Administrative Procedures Act...an act that grants the POTUS power to implement law in stages...making it applicable to an existing law that has seen similar acts of parole done prior is extremely puzzling...

war  posted on  2015-02-18   12:22:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: war (#6)

When one treats an individual this way, it is NOT defacto making law.

You know, and I know, that is EXACTLY what he is doing.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-18   16:02:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Dead Culture Watch (#7)

When one treats an individual this way, it is NOT defacto making law.

I'm unclear as to what you are stating here...

war  posted on  2015-02-19   8:43:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: war (#8)

What I said, although I admit a but murkily, is that 0Zero can grant pardons legally, of course, on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.

Something not exactly in his job description.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-20   4:21:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Dead Culture Watch (#9)

When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.

I've read the law...it puts no such restriction on DHS regarding parole...and, in fact, DHS lists keeping families, a group, together as a means of obtaining humanitarian parole...

war  posted on  2015-02-20   8:27:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: war (#10) (Edited)

When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.

I've read the law...it puts no such restriction on DHS regarding parole...and, in fact, DHS lists keeping families, a group, together as a means of obtaining humanitarian parole...

This Presidential "pardon/reprieve" issue [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] has already been discussed thoroughly before. You seem to be confusing that with some kind of imaginary, perpetual immunity for illegal aliens from immediately reverting back to criminal status within a split second of such an Executive overreach to supposedly grant them "absolution" for their prior offenses here. Obama couldn't even sign "re-orders" fast enough to keep up with that glitch in his "Amnesty" schemes, which he seemingly intends to do for illegal migrants what the 14th Amendment did after the "Civil War" by blanketly bestowing U.S. citizenship in-general for every State citizen here uniformly so as to ensure the Constitutional rights of any freed Slaves that didn't have State citizenship yet.

In the first place, the only Constitutionally delegated authority that the Federal government actually has over immigration is to protect the States from invasion [Article IV, Section 4: Guarantee Clause] and to establish, then equitably maintain, a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" [Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: Naturalization], not special rules for illegals -- both of which Obama has been violating and coercively so. The States have the reserved right to determine their immigration policy in accordance with their intake ability.

Edited sentence 3 and next to last sentence.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-20   10:53:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: GreyLmist (#12)

This Presidential "pardon/reprieve" issue [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] has already been discussed thoroughly before.

Granting parole is not the same as granting a pardon or a reprieve. Pardons and reprieves are terminal. Parole is temporary and the power to do so has been extended by enacted law...in this case Title 8 Section 212.5

. You seem to be confusing that with some kind of imaginary, perpetual immunity for illegal aliens from immediately reverting back to criminal status within a split second of such an Executive overreach to supposedly grant them "absolution" for their prior offenses here.

I'm not confused at all. On the other hand, anyone confusing the temporary state of parole with *amnesty*, which is a permanent state, is the one who is confused.

In the first place, the only Constitutionally delegated authority that the Federal government actually has over immigration is to protect the States from invasion

That's pure bullshit. The Federalist, Madison's notes and the Farrand Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 all make it very clear that this clause refers to a violent invasion by a foreign army (which included the neighboring Indian nations).

"Then, on July 18, Gouverneur Morris objected to this language on the ground that ''[h]e should be very unwilling that such laws as exist in R. Island ought to be guaranteed to each State of the Union.'' 2 id., 47. Madison then suggested language ''that the Constitutional authority of the States shall be guaranteed to them respectively against domestic as well as foreign violence,''

" Again, on July 18, when Wilson and Mason indicated their understanding that the object of the proposal was ''merely'' to protect States against violence, Randolph asserted: ''The Resoln. has 2 Objects. 1. to secure Republican government. 2. to suppress domestic commotions. He urged the necessity of both these provisions.'' 2 id., 47. Following speakers alluded to the dangers of monarchy being created peacefully as necessitating the provision. Id., 48. See W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution -

See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/...e4/annotation18.html#t322

Then you have Joseph Story:

§ 1812. "A protection against invasion is due from every society, to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used, seems to secure each state not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbours.

-Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Constitution

http://www.constitution.org/js/js_341.htm

The States have the reserved right to determine their immigration policy in accordance with their intake ability.

You couldn't be more wrong...states have no power to regulate persons as they ingress or egress through their states...

war  posted on  2015-02-20   11:19:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: war (#15) (Edited)

Re: your assertions about the Guarantee Clause and the States not being protected Federally from invasion.

I'm just going to note quickly here for now that the States are fully empowered to protect themselves from invasion, by force of their Militia arms and even by going to war themselves or in conjunction with other States, if need be, before resorting to a request of any assistance at the Federal level. At that point, violence would already be an issue. However, the Federal branch has been obstructing their abilities to protect themselves so and also to simply enforce their own protective laws.

Edited line 1 and added next to last sentence.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-20   12:25:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: GreyLmist (#23) (Edited)

I'm just going to note quickly here for now that the States are fully empowered to protect themselves from invasion, by force of their Militia arms and even by going to war themselves or in conjunction with other States, if need be, before resorting to a request of any assistance at the Federal level. At that point, violence would already be an issue. However, the Federal branch has been obstructing their abilities to protect themselves so and also to simply enforce their own protective laws.

A governor cannot mobilize National Guard troops to enforce federal law. A governor or group of governors cannot declare war or mobilize any guard troops under his command to go to war.

For more information see: The Total Force Policy, 1973

war  posted on  2015-02-20   12:47:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: war (#25)

A governor cannot mobilize National Guard troops to enforce federal law. A governor or group of governors cannot declare war or mobilize any guard troops under his command to go to war.

For more information see: The Total Force Policy, 1973

Yes they can and the National Guard isn't the entirety of a State's Militia. I wasn't talking about the States enforcing Federal law but their own protective laws, by force of arms if need be. I was also talking about Constitutionality but you're talking about things that violate it as if that's ok and anything goes there that politicos do legislatively. However, that's not even a Republican form of government, such as our Constitution guarantees for us. It's mob rule.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-20   13:14:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 28.

#29. To: GreyLmist (#28)

Yes they can

Sorry...no...

Only the US Congress can declare war...

war  posted on  2015-02-20 13:17:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: All (#28)

Excerpt from your post at #25: A governor or group of governors cannot [...] mobilize any guard troops under his command to go to war. For more information see: The Total Force Policy, 1973

Excerpt from my post at #28: Yes they can and the National Guard isn't the entirety of a State's Militia.

Not sure what you meant to convey about the Total Force Policy then or now -- which appears to be coordinating policy-directives with reference to National Guard units reserved for Federal service, as well as the Military's forces still in Reserve after completing their contracted years of Regular Army service, etc. ... not a subverting rewrite of the Constitution to totally transfer all command and control over State Militias from Governors to the Federal branch, nor even an attempted Compact Clause erasure of States' Rights at Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 to "demilitarize" their individual Powers of War and Protective Defenses pursuantly (as noted at Post #72), if that's what you were thinking.

In addition to all of that at paragraph 1 for these comments and the quoted comment from Post #28 in regard to those of our National Guards who are in federalized service, although not comprising the entirety of a State's Militia, see the following for further gubernatorial Militia-mobilization clarifications and such:

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

[Texas Government Code, for example,] forbids a militia unit from another state to enter, absent the permission from the governor or under federal orders.

Template talk:United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia

if a neighboring state is being invaded, the governor can refuse to send State Defense Force unit(s) to aid the invading state if so choose.

Footnote #34 at State Defense Forces and Homeland Security - strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil

34. Stentiford, p. 56, provides examples of SDFs [State Defense Forces/Militias] operating outside their state boundaries and even in Canada during World War I. Dupuy et al., p. B-2, discusses SDFs operating outside state borders either in “hot pursuit” or at the direction of the governor and at the request of the neighboring state.

Also:

State defense force - Wikipedia

State defense forces (SDF; also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government;

State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.

In 1950, with the outbreak of the Korean War and at the urging of the National Guard, Congress reauthorized the separate state military forces for a time period of two years. These state military forces were authorized military training at federal expense, as well as "arms, ammunition, clothing, and equipment," as deemed necessary by the Secretary of the Army.[10] At the end of the two years, however, they were not reauthorized under federal law.

In 1956, Congress finally revised the law and authorized "State defense forces" permanently under Title 32, Section 109, of the United States Code.[11] Two years later, Congress amended the law and changed the name from "State defense forces" to "defense forces."[12] Still, it was not until the early Ronald Reagan administration that many states developed their defense forces into elements that existed beyond paper, when the U.S. Department of Defense actively encouraged states to create and maintain SDF units.[13]

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

Not to be confused with Title 8 Section 212.5, which you've been referencing. More, continued:

The 21st-Century [Modern] Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security

in 1983, Congress amended the National Defense Act to authorize all states to maintain permanent State Defense Forces.[20]

Not that the States needed any Federal permission-authorization to train and equip their Militias themselves to the best of their abilities Militarily and Financially but those are some archival "bulleted points", so to speak concisely, from documentations on those issues.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-03 18:08:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]