Tweet
Ouch: Fox News Channel Runs Deport Obama Main Header Image; Federal Judge Strikes Obama
Birther Report
12/17/2014
Excerpt:
The article headlined at Fox News Channel is regarding a federal judge in Pennsylvania that declared parts of Obama's illegal immigration executive action unconstitutional. The case is unrelated to Sheriff Arpaio's legal action.
But...
Excerpt via Fox News:
In an update on Sheriff Arpaio's legal action Team Obama filed a response warning the Obama appointed judge to stay out of the debate and that the courts are powerless to stop Obama's unconstitutional executive actions.
Excerpt via Washington Times:
I would guess all the lawyers and states (24) currently suing Obama over his unconstitutional actions are watching.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/12...ort-obama.html
Birther Report
12/17/2014
Excerpt:
The article headlined at Fox News Channel is regarding a federal judge in Pennsylvania that declared parts of Obama's illegal immigration executive action unconstitutional. The case is unrelated to Sheriff Arpaio's legal action.
But...
Excerpt via Fox News:
Federal judge: Obama immigration actions 'unconstitutional'
[...] In an opinion filed Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, in Pennsylvania, said Obama's immigration actions are invalid and effectively count as "legislation" from the Executive Branch.
"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," the judge wrote.
The opinion, though, is unique in that it did not come in response to a challenge to Obama's immigration policy announcement. It is unclear what impact, if any, the opinion might have other than to rally critics and fuel momentum behind other lawsuits. [...] Fox News.
[...] In an opinion filed Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, in Pennsylvania, said Obama's immigration actions are invalid and effectively count as "legislation" from the Executive Branch.
"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," the judge wrote.
The opinion, though, is unique in that it did not come in response to a challenge to Obama's immigration policy announcement. It is unclear what impact, if any, the opinion might have other than to rally critics and fuel momentum behind other lawsuits. [...] Fox News.
In an update on Sheriff Arpaio's legal action Team Obama filed a response warning the Obama appointed judge to stay out of the debate and that the courts are powerless to stop Obama's unconstitutional executive actions.
Excerpt via Washington Times:
Amnesty fight: Obama admin tells courts they’re powerless to stop executive order
The administration warned a federal judge Monday to stay out of the debate over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, saying decisions about whom to deport fall squarely within the executive’s job description, “which this court lacks authority to review.”
In its first extended legal filing in one of the court challenges to the new amnesty, the Justice Department says courts have long held that an agency’s decision whether or not to prosecute someone or to enforce the law is entitled to “absolute discretion.” [...]
The filing came in a case filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County, in Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio argues the president’s amnesty will lead to more illegal immigrants in the future, which means his department will have to deal with more crime and a higher workload. That higher workload, he argues, is an injury that gives him standing to sue. [...] Washington Times.
The administration warned a federal judge Monday to stay out of the debate over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, saying decisions about whom to deport fall squarely within the executive’s job description, “which this court lacks authority to review.”
In its first extended legal filing in one of the court challenges to the new amnesty, the Justice Department says courts have long held that an agency’s decision whether or not to prosecute someone or to enforce the law is entitled to “absolute discretion.” [...]
The filing came in a case filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County, in Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio argues the president’s amnesty will lead to more illegal immigrants in the future, which means his department will have to deal with more crime and a higher workload. That higher workload, he argues, is an injury that gives him standing to sue. [...] Washington Times.
I would guess all the lawyers and states (24) currently suing Obama over his unconstitutional actions are watching.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/12...ort-obama.html