Share This Article with a Friend!

Will The Supreme Court Elect Donald Trump President Today?

While the establishment media has largely ignored this story, and its profound implications for constitutional liberty, today the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Texas.  

This case is the challenge to Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens, the so-called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, an expansion of the earlier Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The lawsuit was brought by governors and attorneys general from Texas Supreme Courtand twenty-five other states.  

Under these unconstitutional programs, Obama claims the right to, by executive fiat, make an illegal alien "lawfully present" in the U.S. and eligible to receive a work permit after an application is reviewed (typically merely rubber stamped) and a fee is paid. 

According to our friends at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the core issues of the states’ case are that the DAPA program: 

(1) DAPA violates the president's constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” 

(2) DAPA was promulgated without public notice and comment. 

(3) DAPA is in excess of agency authority. 

Other major legal issues include: 

(4) Is DAPA discretion? 

(5) Is DAPA an interpretive rule? 

(6) Does the Executive have authority to grant DAPA recipients work authorizations? 

Nearly all the media attention has been focused on the discretion issue to the exclusion of all the others.  

But is it really just discretion to not prosecute when, under DAPA, the government is handing out work permits and making illegal aliens eligible to work in the United States as well as to receive Social Security, unemployment, and disability benefits? 

Obama explicitly claims that he has unlimited authority to allow any alien to work — unless Congress explicitly prohibits it. Except that even when Congress explicitly prohibits such work (as with illegal aliens) the president still claims authority to grant it. Obama also claims authority to make any alien "lawfully present" in the United States. In other words, Obama claims to have the power to allow any alien to be in and to work in the United States

The real issue in this case is not “discretion,” but whether or not there is any limit at all on presidential power

President Obama’s announcement that he was unilaterally offering amnesty to youthful illegal immigrants was further confirmation that Obama’s administration is the most lawless in American history. 

However, Americans should not really be surprised that Obama took this path – it was, after all, apparently in his political interest to pander to radical sentiment among some Latinos, and it was in Obama’s words “the right thing to do.” 

Notice there was no mention of “the constitutional thing to do.” 

The Framers of the Constitution recognized that “the right thing to do” was a plastic concept, readily molded to fit political expediency – that’s why they created a system of checks and balances to ensure that no individual or cabal could gain absolute power or control the levers of government power without check. 

But what happens if the executive, in this case Barack Obama, simply ignores the law, or refuses to enforce it? 

As CHQ Chairman Richard A. Viguerie and attorney Mark J. Fitzgibbons pointed out in their e-pamphlet “The Law the Governs Government,” for many years the political establishment has shown contempt for the Constitution and rigged the rules to protect and hide its lawbreaking. 

From unilaterally granting amnesty to a select group of illegal aliens, to trampling on the religious freedom and freedom of conscience of American Catholics and other Christians, to using unmanned drones to gather information for federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies, to ignoring Congressional subpoenas, to trying to use the FCC to regulate the internet even after a federal court held it had no authority to do so this endemic government lawbreaking has gotten progressively worse under Obama. 

In the Federalist No. 44 James Madison wrote that:

the success of the usurpation [of power by the Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.* 

What Madison meant was that voters provide the final answer when government is presented with an intractable situation or gridlock.  Such is the case now. 

Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign on the issue if illegal immigration, and being the message carrier for America’s forgotten country class voters on that issue has sustained Trump through a series of blunders that would have destroyed any other candidate. 

The Republican majority in Congress has consistently failed to act, will the federal courts rein-in the executive, or will the people have the ultimate say at the ballot box? 

We are about to see. 

To download “The Law the Governs Government” click the link. 

To view the CIS report on United States v. Texas click this link.  

Share this

The Court and Lawmaking

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the authority to make or implement laws by the President or the Supreme Court. Their duties are clearly defined. The concept for laws originates in the House of Representatives, approved by the Senate and ONLY becomes "the law of the land" when signed by the President. Yet, O'Bama has assumed illegal powers for himself. Therefore, "The People" are not obligated to obey ANY of his edicts. Roy Fredrichsen Houston, Texas

The United States vs. Texas.

If the Supreme Court rules that the President has the authority to re-write or interpret the immigration laws then we might as well vote to do away with the Congress and accept the fact that we have allowed ourselves to devolve into a banana republic with an elected dictator.
The members of Congress should see this as another attack on their Constitutional authority and a turning point, either they were elected to pass the bills, send them to the President for his signature turning their bills into law or veto them giving the Congress another bite at the apple by overriding the veto, or they accept the fact that the Courts and the President have taken over the roll of Congress and they are nothing but figure heads.
If the members of Congress have any self respect they should seriously begin to realize that if our system of government is to survive they need to act against the Courts and the President by use of the power provided to them in the Constitution of the United Stats of America and that power is the power of impeachment.
After the decision on obamacare the House should have begun the process of Impeachment even though we know that it would have never made it though the Senate. But if the House would have picked out one member, in this case John Roberts perhaps that would have been enough of a message to let them know that future over stepping their authority would have dire consequences in the future.
There should be no misunderstanding of the reason why the Founding Fathers placed the Congress in the First Article of the Constitution of the United States of America. Further, it should be noted that the House was placed before the Senate in Article 1 and there lays the beginning of the process of impeachment.
The current election cycle points out the displeasure and anger on both sides of the American electorate, the Courts and the President should take note and reign in the over reach of their authority.
Finally, the Supreme court has the power and the authority to determine the Constitutionality of laws they do not have the authority or the power to rewrite those laws to fit their own personal political desires.
The President has the power and the authority to carry out the laws of the United States of America not ignore them, or replace them with his vision or accept foreign laws to include the U.N.

Donald Trump

whats wrong with you guys ? trump is not even a conservative. he was donating to the amnesty-pushing "gang of eight" while Ted Cruz was fighting and stopping them. you keep pushing this hillary-worshipping clown and its sickening to real conservatives.

Cruz will actually do something to stop illegal immigration while trump would do nothing as he told the editorial board of the NY Times.

sad to see how CHQ has been fooled into drinking the "trumpaid" are dumber than a bag of hammers

you should change your name to "SuckersHQ" and do that today.

you can't figure out that trump is part of the soros-trump-clinton axis of evil and the plan is to help granny clinton by trashing and dividing the GOP ? WAKE UP !

response to xmdphillips

What is the matter with you? The story has less to do with trump than it has to do with the Supreme Court and how they are morphing into an agent for president obama.
The outcome of this decision is one of the most important that this court will make since they overstepped their authority on obamacare. If they decide that president obama has the authority and power to re-write the immigration laws then there is no hope for our form of government. The Supreme Court of the Unite States of America will have pushed this country into a dictatorship where Congress will have no meaningful roll in the governance of the country unless Congress grows a backbone and begins to impeach the Supreme Court judges for not adhering to their oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Last night it was stated that justice kagen asked the government lawyers if they could not tweak this a little to solve the problem. It is not the courts roll to tweak anything, it is their roll to decide if it is Constitutional for the President of the United States of America to write laws or to enforce laws, period.

There is only one hope and that the Supreme Court reads the Constitution and finally figures out that the President does not have the authority or the power to create laws but only to enforce them.