Finally, some of our senators found enough courage to stand against Obama’s illegal executive orders on immigration. As 26 states have filed suit against the government, so 43 U.S. Senators filed an “amicus brief” in support of their lawsuit. (Amicus brief- “friend of the court.”) The Supreme Court is set to hear the case on April 18.
The brief asks the Supreme Court to affirm the judgment of the US District Court, which placed an injunction against the President’s DAPA program. It is a program which allows the unilateral designation of people as “lawfully present” in the United States. It also grants them benefits.
Separation of powers
The President has maintained that states don’t have the “right” to say no to his program. While this brief doesn’t deal directly with that, it does state that the President’s program is in direct conflict with the Constitution’s separation of powers.
The Amicus brief says in part,
“Given that the Executive has asserted that the acts challenged here are not even subject to judicial review, what is at stake in this matter is nothing less than an effort to supplant Congress’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.’ Such an action stands in stark contravention to federal law and to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. There is little doubt that the Executive adopted the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (‘DAPA’) program as part of an explicit effort to circumvent the legislative process.”
The brief also hits the benefits nature of “prosecutorial discretion.” The President and his minions have in many federal prosecutions- been using an incorrect definition of terms and laws. They have used laws intended for drug cartel members against our own military and contractors. They do not care WHAT they use, as long as they can twist it to their own purposes.
Prosecutorial discretion was NEVER INTENDED to grant benefits to illegal aliens, but once again, Obama bypassed legislative action to grant it.
“The doctrine of prosecutorial discretion applies to enforcement decisions, not benefit decisions. For example, a decision to charge, or not to charge, an alien with a ground of deportability is clearly a prosecutorial enforcement decision. By contrast, the grant of an immigration benefit, such as naturalization or adjustment of status, is a benefit decision that is not a subject for prosecutorial discretion.” General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 2000
The Senators who found their backbones:
Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt, Boozman, Capito, Cassidy, Coats, Cochran, Corker, Cornyn, Cotton, Crapo, Cruz, Daines, Enzi, Fischer, Graham, Grassley, Hatch, Hoeven, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Lankford, Lee, McCain, McConnell, Moran, Paul, Perdue, Risch, Roberts, Rounds, Rubio, Sasse, Scott, Sessions, Shelby, Sullivan, Thune, Tillis, Vitter, and Wicker.
Will they continue to stand? Only time will tell. Eleven of their GOP colleagues are sitting it out, even though some of them said they agree with the brief. Spines on hold for them.
- Federal Judge Blocks Obama’s immigration Order
- Unhinged liberals call for murder of Donald Trump after Immigration Proposal
Why immigration may decide the election
- Exit polls in Michigan show 6 of 10 Republicans support temporary badn of Muslim Immigration