Tweet
25 States: Attorney Klayman Gives Update On Sheriff Arpaio's Obama Amnesty Litigation
Birther Report
2/9/2015
Excerpt:
Full Brief: Attorney Klayman Brief Update On Sheriff Arpaio's Obama Amnesty Litigation
Attorney Larry Klayman filed a brief on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in support of the 25 state lawsuit seeking to halt Obama's amnesty for illegal aliens. The case currently is in the federal courts in Brownsville, Texas.
Attorney Klayman reports @ Renew America:
You can read the full appeal brief .... The amicus brief for the 25 state lawsuit out of Texas is here.
Bill Van Allen also jumped in the action ...
USDC TXSD 14-254 Motion to File Amicus Notice to Seal in Support of Plaintiffs by HW Van Allen USCA DCC 14-... by constitutionmonitors
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/02...es-update.html
Birther Report
2/9/2015
Excerpt:
Full Brief: Attorney Klayman Brief Update On Sheriff Arpaio's Obama Amnesty Litigation
Attorney Larry Klayman filed a brief on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in support of the 25 state lawsuit seeking to halt Obama's amnesty for illegal aliens. The case currently is in the federal courts in Brownsville, Texas.
Attorney Klayman reports @ Renew America:
End in sight to Obama's immigration tyranny
Stopping amnesty granted to millions of illegal aliens by President Barack Hussein Obama is driving much of the controversy this week throughout America's political world.
We at Freedom Watch just filed Sheriff Joe Arpaio's opening brief in his appeal. In Texas, 25 states – half of the country – are suing the Obama administration to halt Obama's amnesty by executive action.
MSNBC reported Feb. 5: "Activists prepare for the worst in lawsuit to block immigration actions." Hopefully shortly, a preliminary injunction will stop Obama's executive amnesty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. "Prominent immigration advocates have all but conceded that federal judge Andrew Hanen – a staunch critic of the Obama administration's immigration policies – will block the president's executive actions just weeks before the measures are slated to kick in," says MSNBC's Amanda Sakuma.
With the considerable resources of 25 states in play, the Texas case has been briefed extensively, with considerable evidence presented. Freedom Watch filed a "Friend of the Court" brief for Joe Arpaio in the Texas case. It is probable that a preliminary injunction will be issued by the end of February, blocking Obama's executive action amnesty schemes.
Sheriff Arpaio, however, was the first to sue. His lawsuit is further advanced, now already in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit"). And it is important for opponents of executive amnesty to win in several judicial circuits to get the issue settled. The question will probably be decided ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, a win is needed in both D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which oversees federal cases in Texas.
It is clear that Obama's various programs granting amnesty to illegal aliens are unconstitutional and/or illegal under statutes like the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires notice and comment by the public before even regulations can be put into effect.
The Executive Branch has no legislative authority except that delegated from Congress. Statutes passed by Congress, not administrative policy, are the exclusive authority on these questions. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (a)(3) provides: "Exclusive procedures: Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, a proceeding under this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States or, if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States."
Of special interest, the Executive Branch's own legal team at the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in Eric Holder's U.S. Department of Justice warned Obama not to do what he is doing. In a 33-page legal memorandum, OLC repeatedly warned that the Executive Branch cannot abdicate its responsibility to enforce the law or rewrite the law: "Second, the Executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences. ... Third, the Executive Branch ordinarily cannot, as the Court put it in Chaney, "'consciously and expressly adopt a general policy' that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." And "Immigration officials cannot abdicate their statutory responsibilities under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion."
However, Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, dismissed Arpaio's case incorrectly. Judge Howell's decision strongly appears to have been influenced more by the politics of the topic than by the legal analysis. The judge viewed the litigation as only a dispute over national policies, not the law. As a result, Howell concluded that the case is not a justiciable, case but a dispute between the Congress and the White House.
But the immediate battle is over "standing." Obama's team believes they can evade scrutiny of the illegal substance of their actions by arguing that no one has "standing" to bring a lawsuit in court to challenge Obama's illegal conduct. In both Arpaio's case in D.C. and the states' case in Texas, Eric Holder's Justice Department is trying to convince the courts to sidestep the lawsuits. [...] Continued @ Renew America.
Stopping amnesty granted to millions of illegal aliens by President Barack Hussein Obama is driving much of the controversy this week throughout America's political world.
We at Freedom Watch just filed Sheriff Joe Arpaio's opening brief in his appeal. In Texas, 25 states – half of the country – are suing the Obama administration to halt Obama's amnesty by executive action.
MSNBC reported Feb. 5: "Activists prepare for the worst in lawsuit to block immigration actions." Hopefully shortly, a preliminary injunction will stop Obama's executive amnesty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. "Prominent immigration advocates have all but conceded that federal judge Andrew Hanen – a staunch critic of the Obama administration's immigration policies – will block the president's executive actions just weeks before the measures are slated to kick in," says MSNBC's Amanda Sakuma.
With the considerable resources of 25 states in play, the Texas case has been briefed extensively, with considerable evidence presented. Freedom Watch filed a "Friend of the Court" brief for Joe Arpaio in the Texas case. It is probable that a preliminary injunction will be issued by the end of February, blocking Obama's executive action amnesty schemes.
Sheriff Arpaio, however, was the first to sue. His lawsuit is further advanced, now already in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit"). And it is important for opponents of executive amnesty to win in several judicial circuits to get the issue settled. The question will probably be decided ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, a win is needed in both D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which oversees federal cases in Texas.
It is clear that Obama's various programs granting amnesty to illegal aliens are unconstitutional and/or illegal under statutes like the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires notice and comment by the public before even regulations can be put into effect.
The Executive Branch has no legislative authority except that delegated from Congress. Statutes passed by Congress, not administrative policy, are the exclusive authority on these questions. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (a)(3) provides: "Exclusive procedures: Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, a proceeding under this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States or, if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States."
Of special interest, the Executive Branch's own legal team at the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in Eric Holder's U.S. Department of Justice warned Obama not to do what he is doing. In a 33-page legal memorandum, OLC repeatedly warned that the Executive Branch cannot abdicate its responsibility to enforce the law or rewrite the law: "Second, the Executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences. ... Third, the Executive Branch ordinarily cannot, as the Court put it in Chaney, "'consciously and expressly adopt a general policy' that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." And "Immigration officials cannot abdicate their statutory responsibilities under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion."
However, Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, dismissed Arpaio's case incorrectly. Judge Howell's decision strongly appears to have been influenced more by the politics of the topic than by the legal analysis. The judge viewed the litigation as only a dispute over national policies, not the law. As a result, Howell concluded that the case is not a justiciable, case but a dispute between the Congress and the White House.
But the immediate battle is over "standing." Obama's team believes they can evade scrutiny of the illegal substance of their actions by arguing that no one has "standing" to bring a lawsuit in court to challenge Obama's illegal conduct. In both Arpaio's case in D.C. and the states' case in Texas, Eric Holder's Justice Department is trying to convince the courts to sidestep the lawsuits. [...] Continued @ Renew America.
You can read the full appeal brief .... The amicus brief for the 25 state lawsuit out of Texas is here.
Bill Van Allen also jumped in the action ...
USDC TXSD 14-254 Motion to File Amicus Notice to Seal in Support of Plaintiffs by HW Van Allen USCA DCC 14-... by constitutionmonitors
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/02...es-update.html