[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: 1269
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 # 89.

#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  


#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  


#30. To: All (#29)

I wasn't talking about the States enforcing Federal law but their own protective laws, by force of arms if need be.

What WE are talking about is immigration, i.e. federal law...not an invading force or state laws...

war  posted on  2015-02-20   13:20:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: war (#30)

I wasn't talking about the States enforcing Federal law but their own protective laws, by force of arms if need be.

What WE are talking about is immigration, i.e. federal law...not an invading force or state laws...

This isn't an immigration issue. It's an illegal migrant issue. What's called federal law as to dictating "immigration policies" for the States has overstepped its boundaries.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-22   12:41:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: GreyLmist (#42)

What's called federal law as to dictating "immigration policies" for the States has overstepped its boundaries.

If I understand what you are trying to *state* here, a State has NO power to regulate ingress and egress of people through and across its territory and borders...

Drive to Canada or Mexico...those aren't state authorities monitoring the border.

war  posted on  2015-02-27   12:22:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: war (#49) (Edited)

What's called federal law as to dictating "immigration policies" for the States has overstepped its boundaries.

If I understand what you are trying to *state* here, a State has NO power to regulate ingress and egress of people through and across its territory and borders...

Drive to Canada or Mexico...those aren't state authorities monitoring the border.

No, that's not what I stated. The Federal branch has failed to adequately guard the borders of our States that comprise our national borders but States certainly can regulate the travels of foreigners through their regions to only lawful Visa holders and such. The Federal government simply has Uniform Rules of Naturalization authority, which Obama's so-called "parole"/"deferred action" maneuverings, etc., have attempted to subvert and non-uniformly "fast-track" for criminals. It does not even have "immigration policy" authority to dictate that States must yield to however many lawful immigrants might choose to take up residence there beyond its set capacity levels, let alone that the States must submissively be burdened with illegal aliens, too, as a "Federally protected" group.

Edited sentence 3.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-01   11:38:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: GreyLmist (#60) (Edited)

...but States certainly can regulate the travels of foreigners through their regions to only lawful Visa holders and such.

Nope. They most certain cannot do that.

What they can do is question a person on their immigrant status if the person or persons are stopped for a traffic stop or other reason unrelated to their appearance and if they have a *reasonable* suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally.

As much as you lovers of *small* government seem to enjoy enabling broad and expansive policing powers that have devolved *probable cause* in to *reasonable suspicion*, we are not a *papers please* or *stop and frisk* nation.

war  posted on  2015-03-03   8:44:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: war (#70) (Edited)

...but States certainly can regulate the travels of foreigners through their regions to only lawful Visa holders and such.

Nope. They most certain cannot do that.

Says you but let's check pg. 209 of your frequently cited source about that, TITLE 8 SECTION 212.5: "PAROLE OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES" - Government Publishing Office, scroll down to last page here (next to last paragraph, column 1)

(iii) Any alien granted parole into the United States so that he or she may transit through the United States in the course of removal from Canada shall have his or her parole status terminated upon notice, as specified in 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i),

Sounds like something of a regulatory example to me.

What they can do is question a person on their immigrant status if the person or persons are stopped for a traffic stop or other reason unrelated to their appearance and if they have a *reasonable* suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally.

As much as you lovers of *small* government seem to enjoy enabling broad and expansive policing powers that have devolved *probable cause* in to *reasonable suspicion*, we are not a *papers please* or *stop and frisk* nation.

That's nearly hilarious, considering how likeminded Orwellians manifestly oppose alien checkpoints, even at our voting stations, but have arranged it so that American truckers are stopped at checkpoints beaucoup times for "stacks of papers, please."

Edited formatting + to add link.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-04   9:34:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: GreyLmist (#76)

That's nearly hilarious, considering how likeminded Orwellians manifestly oppose alien checkpoints, even at our voting stations, but have arranged it so that American truckers are stopped at checkpoints beaucoup times for "stacks of papers, please."

Look up the term *false equivalency*...you'll see the above as an example. Or is your point that trucks should have more rights than people?

(iii) Any alien granted parole into the United States so that he or she may transit through the United States in the course of removal from Canada shall have his or her parole status terminated upon notice, as specified in 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i),

I have no idea what your point is in citing this section. What does someone being kicked out of Canada have to do with anything?

war  posted on  2015-03-04   9:46:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: war (#77) (Edited)

is your point that trucks should have more rights than people?

Truckers -- American workers and they're sure not the only ones who are so much more inspected for legality statuses than aliens.

What does someone being kicked out of Canada have to do with anything?

Travelling through the States, regulatorily. Compare to Americans stopped at checkpoints for no probable cause/reasonable suspicion other than to see if they're motoring legally.

Edited last comment section.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-04   9:56:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: GreyLmist (#78)

Truckers -- American workers and they're sure not the only ones who are so much more inspected for legality statuses than aliens.

Truckers are regulated via the Commerce clause and the discretion that clause gives to the US Congress to so regulate. That power is a separate and distinct Article I power from their power to regulate immigration.

Travelling (sic) through the States, regulatorily (sic). Compare to Americans stopped at checkpoints for no probable other than to see if they're motoring legally.

Why would I so compare?

war  posted on  2015-03-04   10:01:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: war (#80) (Edited)

Truckers are regulated via the Commerce clause and the discretion that clause gives to the US Congress to so regulate. That power is a separate and distinct Article I power from their power to regulate immigration.

Next, I suppose you'll be telling me that discretionary Police checkpoints to regulate the travels of Americans who may or may not be in the process of working is part of their Commerce Clause enforcement duties.

Travelling (sic) through the States, regulatorily (sic). Compare to Americans stopped at checkpoints for no probable cause/reasonable suspicion other than to see if they're motoring legally.

Why would I so compare?

Because you objected to my truckers example of American worker verifications; which also happens, btw, even when they're are parked and not on active duty.

Edited formatting, punctuation and to insert prior edits at 2nd quote section.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-04   10:17:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: GreyLmist (#82)

Next, I suppose you'll be telling me that discretionary Police checkpoints to regulate the travels of Americans who may or may not be in the process of working is part of their Commerce Clause enforcement duties.

I have absolutely no idea what analogous point, if any, that you're trying to make between Commerce powers, immigration powers and policing powers. So, would you please get to it?

war  posted on  2015-03-04   10:52:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: war (#83) (Edited)

Next, I suppose you'll be telling me that discretionary Police checkpoints to regulate the travels of Americans who may or may not be in the process of working is part of their Commerce Clause enforcement duties.

I have absolutely no idea what analogous point, if any, that you're trying to make between Commerce powers, immigration powers and policing powers. So, would you please get to it?

I should have added the sarcasm symbolization there, sorry. I'll do it now: /s

Would rather get to the backlogs of other issues here, if you don't have something else at this point to say about that.

Edited to expand the quote section.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-04   12:09:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: GreyLmist (#85)

Would rather get to the backlogs of other issues here, if you don't have something else at this point to say about that.

I don't.

And thanks for clearing that up...

war  posted on  2015-03-04   13:19:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: war (#87)

thanks for clearing that up...

You're welcome.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-04   18:10:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 89.

        There are no replies to Comment # 89.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 89.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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