Is Immigration the Catalyst for a Constitutional Crisis?

REGIME ISSUES ULTIMATUM TO JUDGE WHO ISSUED TEMPORARY STAY ON EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

by Sharon Rondeau

(Feb. 23, 2015) — On Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal judge to lift a stay he had placed one week ago on Obama’s executive actions declaring millions of illegal aliens as non-deportable for up to three years if they met certain conditions.

On February 16, U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas Andrew Hanen placed a temporary hold on the implementation of executive actions announced by Obama on November 20, 2014 which would have expanded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented in August 2012 and renewed last August.

Obama declared the actions affecting as many as five million immigrants as a means to “fix our broken immigration system” after the two chambers of Congress failed to pass the bill he wanted in 2013.

Today, the Obama regime appealed Hanen’s ruling, claiming he “not only lacked the authority to issue an injunction against the executive actions, but also said stopping the program would ‘harm the interests of the public and of third parties who will be deprived of significant law enforcement and humanitarian benefits of prompt implementation.'”

According to Bloomberg News, the regime told Hanen that if he did not reverse his order by Wednesday afternoon, it would invoke the appeal filed with the Fifth Circuit.  While not reaching the merits of the case before him, Hanen had found that it appeared the regime had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to post the change in policy for a public comment period before implementing it unilaterally.

The regime also filed an “emergency motion” with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, asserting that “Preventing the deferred action policies from going into effect interferes with the Federal Government’s comprehensive strategy for enforcing our immigration laws.”

Current immigration law calls for the deportation of illegals through a specified process which has slowed since Obama ascended to the White House in January 2009.  The regime claims that the new executive actions define its ability to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in carrying out immigration law, but opponents claim that Obama has made his own “laws” outside of constitutional restraint.

Contrary to numerous mainstream media reports, Obama did not issue “executive orders” on the matter, which would have had to have been published in the Federal Register.  Rather, he signed two “executive actions,” which constitutionally do not have the force of law. Two executive orders published in the Federal Register dealt tangentially with immigration issues but were not mentioned in his November 20 speech.

Also on November 20, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued several memoranda ordering the implementation of Obama’s deferred deportation program outlined in his speech known as “DAPA.” Obama had planned to issue work permits, Social Security numbers, and certain benefits to illegals whose children were born in the U.S. and who were able to survive a criminal background check.

Johnson’s memos instructed three DHS subsidiaries to “prioritize” deportations, which would have virtually stopped all removals of illegals from the country except for the most serious criminals or national security risks.  The new policies were set to take effect on February 18 but were delayed because of Hanen’s ruling.

The State of Texas, which led the lawsuit challenging the executive actions, has claimed that since the first of the year, 20,000 illegals have crossed the Mexico-U.S. border into Texas, indicating “an ongoing problem on the border that Congress must step up and solve.”

A total of 26 states are plaintiffs in the lawsuit on which Hanen ruled preliminarily last Monday.

According to CBS, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that the regime believes Hanen should lift his own ruling,  but should he choose not to, he “should just grant a stay so that we can move forward with these executive actions in other states.”

The regime claims that the states and courts would expand their power if Hanen’s ruling is left to stand.

In a case originating from an Arizona law in 2010, The U.S. Supreme Court opined that immigration is a federal issue but upheld parts of the law championed by those opposed to liberal immigration policies which consume the time and resources of local law enforcement.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who authored the legal challenge while serving as state attorney general, said that “The lawsuit that I filed against the president actually doesn’t deal with the immigration issue. What it deals with is an overreach by the president who is refusing to follow and abide by the United States Constitution.  Instead of allowing Congress to establish immigration laws as is required by the Constitution…the president himself is making up new immigration laws.”

Last June, constitutional attorney and law professor Jonathan Turley, a self-professed political “liberal,” said that if Obama continued to act alone on immigration following several U.S. Supreme Court rulings which declared three actions he had taken to be constitutional violations, a constitutional crisis could ensue.

The day after the November elections, six Republican Senators stated in a letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that “lawless amnesty” would “create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers,” referring to the U.S. Constitution’s “separation of powers” doctrine which the National Archives characterizes as “deeply ingrained in every American.”

Before the executive actions were announced, political pundits opined that Obama’s solo actions “could provoke a constitutional crisis” by the executive branch’s seizing of powers not granted to it by the U.S. Constitution. Some believe that a constitutional crisis decisively began before Obama’s plans were made known to the public.

The Civil War is considered by some to have been a constitutional crisis.

Some of the nation’s founders, known as “anti-Federalists,” feared the specter of a central government which could become overreaching and overbearing.  Today, the list of federal-government departments is many pages long.