A federal judge in Pennsylvania just got hit by a Bravo-Foxtrot-Oscar (Blinding Flash of the Obvious) and I certainly hope it spreads across the country.As reported by the Washington Times, “A federal judge has found parts of President Obama’s new deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, issuing a scathing memo Tuesday accusing him of usurping Congress’s power to make laws, and dismantling most of the White House’s legal reasoning for circumventing Congress.”
“Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the western district of Pennsylvania, said presidents do have powers to use discretion in deciding how to enforce the law, but said Mr. Obama’s new policy goes well beyond that, setting up a full system for granting legal protections to broad groups of individuals. He said Mr. Obama writing laws — a power that’s reserved for Congress, not the president. “President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote. The judge also said the policy allows illegal immigrants “to obtain substantive rights.”
Boy, am I glad I took civics. We’ve said here on countless occasions that President Obama’s unilateral executive action violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It is not the discretion of the president to make laws on immigration as that clause states only Congress can make rules or laws regarding matters of naturalization – a power enumerated solely to the legislative branch. And a read of Article II doesn’t grant any “prosecutorial discretion” to the executive branch. The laws must be enforced and as Judge Schwab stated, perhaps there can be a debate as to the means by which the law will be enforced — but the president cannot make up his own laws.
Finally!The Times says, “Mr. Obama’s policy would allow up to 5 million illegal immigrants to apply for “deferred action,” a proactive notice that they won’t be deported, and would grant work permits to allow them to compete for jobs legally.”
This is an incredibly huge overreach of his enumerated executive power — and being impatient or not wanting to “break up families” does not warrant his disregard of the law.
However, as the Times reports, “Judge Schwab’s order does not invalidate the president’s policies. But it serves as a warning shot as other direct challenges to the new amnesty begin to make their way through the courts.”And of course it does establish a judicial precedent on this topic — as well as others. So I suppose we should send a note to Gwyneth Paltrow that in a Constitutional Republic we don’t just allow the president to do whatever he wants – that’s called the rule of one, a dictatorship.
However, don’t think for a minute this ruling is going to be accepted by the progressive socialist left. The Times says “immigrant rights advocates said the ruling was a shocking overstep of the court’s authority. Indeed, the Obama administration has argued in federal court in Washington that judges have no power to review the president’s decision-making.”“I believe that these are the people who didn’t pass their civics class — they certainly haven’t read the Constitution nor do they comprehend the separation of powers or the system of checks and balances.
For the left, the reason they try to rack and stack the courts is because they think it’s supposed to be a rubber stamp for their agenda. Even President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought to “fundamentally transform” the Supreme Court and stack it in his favor.
And we saw Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid change the 60-vote threshold to a simple majority in order to pass through the executive branch judicial nominees — what is their mission? Well, it’s certainly not to interpret the law but rather judicial activism and legislating from the bench. Judge Schwab did exactly what the Founding Fathers meant for federal judges as articulated through Article III — outlining the duties and responsibilities of the Judicial branch.
What we are witnessing is a complete “fundamental transformation” of our system of coequal branches of government and the concepts which the author of our Constitution — James Madison — learned and adopted from Charles Montesquieu’s “Spirit of the Laws.”
Constitutionalism shouldn’t be a dirty word and we must strive to illuminate our Republic — not democracy — and what that entails, because if we do not adhere to our Constitutional republican form of government, then what shall we become?
This is why the coming 2016 election cycle is about far more than just a presidential election — it is about our system of governance. And it is imperative that we have a candidate who can simply articulate the dangers of the path we are on in America, not just for D.C. insiders or political pundits — but for the average everyday American, regardless of race, gender, or age.
Just as Barack Obama was able to enrapture a nation and firmly stated that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States,” we must have a charismatic leader who can state that “we are just days away from reversing the fundamental transformation of the greatest nation the world has ever known.” And crowds must understand what that means and how it affects their daily lives — and the lives of their children and grandchildren.
So, I challenge all of us parents, lets start talking to our children about the Constitution and sharing it with them. Let’s make it an occasional dinner conversation – it’s just that important. Why is it necessary? So somebody doesn’t come along and lead us further down a road to perdition.
Words can sound very nice when delivered by a skilled orator — but there comes a time when you need to go back and read the words spoken and digest their meaning. The one great thing about the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the U.S .Constitution is that the words are easily comprehensible, concise, and relevant across the ages.
Thanks Judge Schwab for reminding us what the judicial branch is supposed to do — as according to Article III of our Constitution.