BREAKING: Supreme Court Just Dropped A Bombshell On Obama That’ll Have Massive Impact

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to review the case regarding President Obama’s so-called “executive amnesty.”

As reported by Western Journalism, the Obama administration announced in the late fall of 2014 it was expanding beyond its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to include the illegal alien parents of children born in the United States. The new program is called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

The administration stated it was exercising prosecutorial discretion by choosing to shield up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation. Since then, 26 states have sued the federal government, citing the abuse of executive authority.

A federal judge in Texas issued a temporary injunction last year against the Obama administration going forward with its plan, finding its was likely unconstitutional, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld.

The Obama administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which will probably hear the oral arguments in April, with a decision following by June.

Prior to the administration’s decision to roll out the DAPA program, the president said on numerous occasions he lacked the power to act unilaterally to change the nation’s immigration laws. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States,” he said during a speech in 2013. “My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

The issue of illegal immigration has been one of the key issues in the Republican primary battle ever since Donald Trump entered the race with a proposal to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and deport all illegal immigrants.

Watch: O’Reilly Just Nailed The Left’s ‘Secret Plan’ In Only 13 Words- You NEED To See This

A liberal push to transform immigration law is only the surface chatter that masks a much more dangerous agenda, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is warning America.

“The uber-left wants traditional America wiped off the face of the earth,” O’Reilly said Tuesday, sounding an alarm that what appears to be a political strategy aimed at recruiting Hispanic voters to win the 2016 elections for the Democratic Party is really a drive to upend America’s society.

O’Reilly listed off the liberal agenda, using as a guide a New York Times editorial from Thanksgiving Day.

“The left no longer distinguishes between illegal aliens and those who come here legally,” he said. “All foreign nationals who enter are now described by the ‘Times’ and others as immigrants. And, if you use the term illegal alien, you are a bigot.”

“The left says all immigrants again illegal and legal should be welcomed and assimilated. And, not only that the government should give them money to settle in and they should immediately be eligible for all the entitlements Americans can secure,” he said.

“The left wants open borders. No restrictions …No detention. No physical barrier. No deportation proceedings unless the serious crime other than illegal entry is committed. And, if you disagree with that you are promoting an anti-immigrant police state,” he said.

“Open borders, full amnesty, complete entitlement access is indeed radical and dangerous to public order and safety. But, that is the vision of the Democratic Party,” he said.

It is also a dangerous agenda, he said.

“The radical left immigration vision would profoundly change all of America’s traditions, all of them, and that is what the left wants,” O’Reilly said. “Because that ideology sees the American Judeo-Christian tradition as oppressive, exploitative and a white privilege legacy.”

The changes the left seeks would not be superficial, he said, calling on Americans to respond to the threat.

“The uber-left wants traditional America wiped off the face of the Earth. That’s what is truly going on. And if Americans don’t wise up quickly, the left-wing vision of immigration may very well become a reality.”

h/t: TheBlaze

Court Drives Stake Into Heart Of Obama Amnesty Plan

Late in the day on November 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dealt the Obama Administration a serious blow. It upheld the Preliminary Injunction of the U.S. District Court in Texas which blocked Obama’s executive action to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens under the plan known as DAPA. Read the court’s opinion here.

Interestingly, the Fifth Circuit opinion quotes back to the Obama Justice Department President Obama’s own statement that since Congress would not act, he would change the law by himself:

“Indeed, as the district court recognized, the President explicitly stated that ‘it was the failure of Congress to enact such a program that prompted him . . . to “change the law.”‘… At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes. And the dissent attempts to avoid the impact of the President’s statement by accusing the district court and this panel majority of ‘relying . . . on selected excerpts of the President’s public statements….’” [at 65]

The problem began in November 2014, with the Obama Department of Homeland Security issuing various “policies” designed to grant “lawful presence” to about 4 million illegal aliens meeting certain criteria, who otherwise would be subject to deportation. The Administration claimed it was simply using “prosecutorial discretion” — choosing not to enforce the law against certain persons. The challenge by 26 states asserted that President Obama opposed, and was simply refusing to enforce, the nation’s immigration laws.

The district court issued a preliminary injunction against DAPA. Earlier this year, a panel of the Fifth Circuit had refused the Administration’s request to stay that injunction. Monday’s decision upheld that preliminary injunction.

Six months ago, on May 11, 2015, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit supporting the challenge brought by the State of Texas and the other states against the Obama Administration’s misuse of “executive action” (“DAPA”) to implement provisions of the DREAM Act that Congress refused to enact. (Read our brief here.)

Our brief argued first that the states have standing to sue under a theory of “abdication standing.” Under this theory, if the federal government claims sole authority to act in a given area (such as immigration law), to the exclusion of the states, but then fails or refuses to act in that area, the states may challenge that abdication of authority in court.

Next, we argued that DAPA’s grant of immunity from prosecution to millions of illegal aliens constituted an exercise of a type of monarchical prerogative power to dispense or “waive” the law with respect to certain persons. The U.S. Constitution recognizes no such authority of the President to choose to exempt certain favored persons from the nation’s immigration laws.

As to the constitutional issues, our brief argued that, in implementing DAPA, the President acted contrary to both the express and implied will of Congress. First, Congress had explicitly legislated that illegal aliens who are unlawfully present should be removed. Second, Congress had refused several times to enact the DREAM Act, the same provisions which the President seeks to implement here by executive action. Third, while Congress has at times explicitly granted deferred action to various small groups of aliens, that is entirely different than the general amnesty to millions the President seeks to give here. When opposing Congress’ will, the Supreme Court has said that the President’s powers are “at their lowest ebb.”

Our brief also argued that, by refusing to enforce the law, the President is exercising what could be considered a post-enactment veto power. However, the Constitution grants him only the right to veto a law before it is enacted. Once a bill becomes law, however, the Take Care Clause of the Constitution requires the President to enforce it unless it is unconstitutional.

Finally, our brief discussed the enormous financial strain that millions of legalized illegal aliens will place on the Social Security and Medicare systems, and yet pay little in taxes while receiving much in benefits.

This is a case that almost certainly will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. In it, the Fifth Circuit panel split 2-1. In the majority were Reagan appointee Judge Jerry E. Smith, and G.W. Bush appointee Judge Jennifer W. Elrod. Dissenting was Carter appointee Judge Carolyn D. King. The two opinions totaled 124 pages.

Our brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, TREA Senior Citizens League, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc., U.S. Border Control Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, Institute on the Constitution, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Copyright © 2015 William J. Olson, P.C. All rights reserved.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Immediately After Federal Court Blocked Obama’s Immigration Plan, His Admin Took A Huge Action

Barack Obama announced an executive order in 2014 which shielded up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation.

At the time, Obama stated: “The fact is millions of immigrants, in every state, of every race and nationality still live here illegally. And let’s be honest, tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic. It also isn’t who we are as Americans.”

Many Republicans spoke out against the executive order. Rand Paul, a current Republican presidential candidate, stated at the time: “President Obama is not above the law and has no right to issue executive amnesty. His actions blatantly ignore the separations of powers and the principles our country was founded on.”

Twenty-six states mounted a legal challenge against the Obama administration over the legality of the executive order.

Last February, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen granted a temporary injunction preventing the Obama administration from carrying out the order.

On Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans followed the District Court ruling and ruled 2-1 against Obama’s executive order.

Today the Department of Justice said in a short statement that it would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

DOJ spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said:

The Department of Justice remains committed to taking steps that will resolve the immigration litigation as quickly as possible in order to allow DHS to bring greater accountability to our immigration system by prioritizing the removal of the worst offenders, not people who have long ties to the United States and who are raising American children. The Department disagrees with the Fifth Circuit’s adverse ruling and intends to seek further review from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said in a statement that he has “every confidence that the [Supreme Court] will find the actions lawful.”

What do you think of the Obama administration plan to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court? Share and comment below. 

Federal Court Makes Gigantic Ruling Against Obama That Could Destroy His Big Plan

When the federal government was formed, the Founders gave the power to make laws to Congress, not to a president wanting to impose his will on the nation.

President Obama was reminded of this fundamental truth on Monday when a federal appeals court rejected his attempt to grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants.

The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower federal court’s injunction blocking the edict, which Obama said was his attempt to “change the law.”

Obama’s words from last November came back to haunt him and were cited Monday by federal Judge Jerry E. Smith, who said in the majority ruling that only Congress can revise the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

“The INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization,” Smith wrote.

“Today, the Fifth Circuit asserted that the separation of powers remains the law of the land, and the president must follow the rule of law, just like everybody else,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “Throughout this process, the Obama Administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power, and Texas, leading a charge of 26 states, has secured an important victory to put a halt to the president’s lawlessness.”

The ruling is likely to be appealed. Regardless of the outcome of any appeal, Obama’s executive order is unlikely to be implemented during his presidency.

Although Monday’s ruling does not mean illegal immigrants targeted by Obama’s amnesty will be deported, it does block any action to give them work permits, Social Security numbers and to promise them they will not be deported.

“The court’s decision is a vindication for the Rule of Law and the Constitution,” said Texas Governor Greg Abbott in a statement. “The President’s job is to enforce the immigration laws, not rewrite them. President Obama should abandon his lawless executive amnesty program and start enforcing the law today.”

Texas was joined in the lawsuit by the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

h/t: Fox News