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: 1378
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
Sure sounds good, doesn't it. Gotta have those little barbs of hope in the "news" so that viewership stays up and the people divided.
Yeah, it sounds good to me. I know that as crooked as the government is that Judge Nap might be a bit more optimistic than I am but I still hope he is right.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
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... --I Brake For The Invisible
Good luck : ?
Lol, you are funny! So, the president is the one who makes law? Not congress? Is that your clearly delineated power? Friggen unbelievable. "The Best Way to Control the Opposition is to Lead it." Vladimir Lenin "I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
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... --Are you a *Jew*?
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. "The Best Way to Control the Opposition is to Lead it." Vladimir Lenin "I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
I'm unclear as to what you are stating here... --Are you a *Jew*?
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. "The Best Way to Control the Opposition is to Lead it." Vladimir Lenin "I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
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... --Are you a *Jew*?
Well hell, If the DHS says so, it must be! Common sense and the rule of law mean nothing today, no wonder our Country resembles a third world bananna republic a little more, every year. So, if the president decided to pardon all murderers in prison and those in jail still awaiting trial, if he signed an executive order making this happen for all time, would you not think he was making a law? Not just refusing to follow his oath of office? I can just imagine your screaming if a Republican did these things. Also, DHS does not get to write law either. You have funny notions about the role of government and the powers that are given to it. "The Best Way to Control the Opposition is to Lead it." Vladimir Lenin "I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
It's all part of Title 8 Section 212.5 US Code... So, if the president decided to pardon all murderers in prison and those in jail still awaiting trial, if he signed an executive order making this happen for all time, would you not think he was making a law? Presidential Pardon power in cases in which impeachment (legislative indictment of public officials) is not at issue, is absolute. So he would not be making law but executing one. Article II Section IIa (in part): ...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Now...if those *murderers* etc were in state prisons having been found guilty of state offenses, then he would have no such power to pardon. --Are you a *Jew*?
Bravo, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen!
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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... --Are you a *Jew*?
There is a uniform rule of naturalization... Naturalization is the act of becoming a citizen... --Are you a *Jew*?
Parole involves a conviction. People aren't "paroled" from criminal status prior to being convicted, nor are illegal aliens "paroled" to "immunity", temporarily or otherwise, from being reinstated to criminal status. Don't go trying to sneak that word into Article 2. It ain't there and isn't supposed to be. Edited sentence 2. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Wrong. In immigration law there are three possible ways to be paroled. definitions.uslegal.com/p/parole-immigration/ Stop trying to play Perry Mason. --Are you a *Jew*?
Naturalization is the act of becoming a citizen... A uniform rule of Naturalization means no special rules and perks for illegal aliens over others who apply the right way. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Naturalization has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with becoming a citizen. --Are you a *Jew*?
In immigration law there are three possible ways to be paroled. definitions.uslegal.com/p/parole-immigration/ Stop trying to play Perry Mason. They haven't sought asylum or refugee status. They are sneakers. Nor have they all been released from detention facilities. Not that I really care much what lawsmithies concocted about it to try and get around the Constitution. There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period. I don't have long to debate this with you this today, so you stop trying to play Perry Mason and then maybe I'll stop objecting. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Naturalization has to do with who becoming a citizen? Immigrants! But this isn't even really an immigration issue. It's an illegal migrant issue being passed off on Americans as if it's not. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Nor have they all been released from detention facilities. So? There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period. Irrelevant...the POTUS is the chief executive of laws...Congress, in its exercise of its Article I powers, enacted immigration law that grants immigrants a limited right to be paroled into the US. --Are you a *Jew*?
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 --Are you a *Jew*?
Yea so? Naturalization has a process...immigration has a process...despite the fact that there may be some sense of *congruency* between the two, one is not dependent upon the other... --Are you a *Jew*?
I agree. Finally a judge makes a decision that is actually in America's best interest. Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Sorry...no... Only the US Congress can declare war... --Are you a *Jew*?
What WE are talking about is immigration, i.e. federal law...not an invading force or state laws... --Are you a *Jew*?
Yea so? Naturalization has a process...immigration has a process...despite the fact that there may be some sense of *congruency* between the two, one is not dependent upon the other... I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here but I'm going to have to move to skip it until another day. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I'll get back to your postings when I can. Please try to put any new ones in reply to me on hold until then so I'm not overly swamped when I return, tia.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Congress can naturalize someone who is not an immigrant... --Are you a *Jew*?
Yep...enjoy...hope it all goes smoothly...
--Are you a *Jew*?
Friggen unbelievable. No, it's believable. War is like all liberals. Delusional or on a crusade to fundamentally change America..."by any means necessary." Congress?? Their job is to nod like obedient poodles, right? We apparently don't need no stinkin' Congress... Yeah -- didn't you know 0bongo is the Dems'/libs' KING??! They are perfectly content to allow this tyrant use a stroke of the pen and phone to crater the USA with unconstitutional EOs. You mean the President is the one who decides which laws to subvert, which laws to ignore, and which laws he can create -- with a stroke of the pen of course. Pretty cool, eh? "Parole" assumes a law has already been committed, doesn't it? So how many millions of "paroles" is he handing out like M&Ms? And now by BS technicality (Title 8 Section 212.5) 0bungler is going to circumvent U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4?: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION." When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law. Something not exactly in his job description. GAME OVER. Yes, but Reagan and Bush weren't elected King....:-) Also, DHS does not get to write law either. You have funny notions about the role of government and the powers that are given to it. ((( scoring like pinball machine ))) Irrelevant...the POTUS is the chief executive of laws...Congress, in its exercise of its Article I powers, enacted immigration law that grants immigrants a limited right to be paroled into the US. Congress isn't really authorized to reword or otherwise alter the Article II restricted powers of the Executive branch by passing immigration law. It would take an Amendment, and one in keeping with all of the Constitution, to write the word "parole" into that section. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Congress can naturalize someone who is not an immigrant... I think that you have been putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, in your sentence structure about that -- the naturalization process before an immigration process to apply for such, all the steps of which must be Constitutionally lawful. Can you give me an example of Congressional naturalization without immigration other than the Post "Civil War" 14th Amendment to collectively Naturalize freed slaves as U.S. citizens in-general who didn't have State citizenship yet?; which included the same status for all Americans who were citizens of the States. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Comments (41 - 90) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Katniss (#1)
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
(Edited)
Napolitano called Hanen's ruling "rare"...
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#5. To: war (#3)
Rarer still is a judge granting States standing to bring suit over a clearly delineated reserved power..
#6. To: Dead Culture Watch (#5)
So, the president is the one who makes law?
#7. To: war (#6)
#8. To: Dead Culture Watch (#7)
When one treats an individual this way, it is NOT defacto making law.
#9. To: war (#8)
#10. To: Dead Culture Watch (#9)
When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.
#11. To: war (#10)
#12. To: war (#10)
(Edited)
When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.
#13. To: Dead Culture Watch (#11)
Well hell, If the DHS says so, it must be!
#14. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
#15. To: GreyLmist (#12)
This Presidential "pardon/reprieve" issue [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] has already been discussed thoroughly before.
#16. To: GreyLmist (#12)
"uniform Rule of Naturalization"
#17. To: war (#15)
(Edited)
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
#18. To: GreyLmist (#17)
Parole involves a conviction.
#19. To: war (#16)
There is a uniform rule of naturalization...
#20. To: GreyLmist (#19)
A uniform rule of Naturalization means no special rules and perks for illegal aliens over others who apply the right way.
#21. To: war (#18)
Wrong.
#22. To: war (#20)
Naturalization has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with becoming a citizen.
#23. To: war (#15)
(Edited)
#24. To: GreyLmist (#21)
They haven't sought asylum or refugee status.
#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.
#26. To: GreyLmist (#22)
Naturalization has to do with who becoming a citizen? Immigrants!
#27. To: GreyLmist (#14)
Bravo, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen!
#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.
#29. To: GreyLmist (#28)
Yes they can
#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.
#31. To: war (#26)
Naturalization has to do with who becoming a citizen? Immigrants!
#32. To: war (#30)
#33. To: GreyLmist (#31)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...
#34. To: GreyLmist (#32)
#35. To: Dead Culture Watch, war (#5)
So, the president is the one who makes law? Not congress? Is that your clearly delineated power?
#36. To: war, Dead Culture Watch (#6)
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.
#37. To: Dead Culture Watch, war (#9)
What I said, although I admit a but murkily, is that 0Zero can grant pardons legally, of course, on an INDIVIDUAL basis.
#38. To: Dead Culture Watch, war (#11)
I can just imagine your screaming if a Republican did these things.
#39. To: war (#24)
There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period.
#40. To: war (#33)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...
.
.
.