Arizona Asks Supreme Court To Review Immigration Law

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced late Wednesday she has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to consider her state’s appeal to a lower court ruling that put on hold key parts of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law.

Our New Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble...with Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling. As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court , even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on... And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’ Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the
intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This
information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student inHawaii, double citizenship, natural born...and others.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling—that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I think that Obama could run into a proverbial buzz saw with the following:

United States Constitution: Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

" ... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ... "

The failure of Obama to uphold his end of the oath is a political question - not a justicable one, subject to SCOTUS ruling [I think]. SCOTUS would probably say it was up to Congress as to whether it would consider impeachment charges in this case.

OTOH, [I think] the fact that Obama DOES NOT wish to enforce the federal immigration statutes DOES NOT relieve State officers of their obligations to support the Constitution [and the laws made pursuant thereof] under Article VI.

NOR [I think] does lack of enforcement on the Executive's part PROHIBIT the States from enforcing federal law. Otherwise, what is the use of having a Supremacy Clause in the first place?

I mean, if the Executive could ignore federal law with impunity, and also prohibit the States from enforcing, a President could choose to ignore the enforcement provisions of say - the Civil Rights Act.

I will have to check SCOTUS decisions concerning enforcement of federal laws and get back to you ...

A Supreme Court decision on the AZ immigration law may well rest on whether it accepts AZ’s claim of “concurrent jurisdiction” or whether it accepts the administration’s claim of “exclusive jurisdiction” to enforce federal law. This lies squarely within the precepts of Article II and Article VI of the United States Constitution. In this regard, the Constitution provides that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

A century before the United States Constitution took effect, Britain’s King James II was deposed in no small part because he claimed the right to generally suspend laws enacted by Parliament and to dispense with law in individual cases. James II hoped to benefit his fellow Roman Catholics by issuing a “declaration of indulgence,” suspending operation of the religious penal laws Parliament had enacted against Roman Catholics and non-Anglican Protestants.

The opposition in Britain was not merely due to religious bigotry. Acknowledging the power to suspend or dispense with laws, even when used to grant religious tolerance, would fatally warp any balance between executive and legislative authority. A legislature has no power to speak of if the executive can simply decide not to enforce its law. Thus, the suspending and dispensing powers were declared illegal in the English Bill of Rights. Knowing this history, the Framers gave the president no choice but to execute laws passed by Congress. As further proof of this, Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War was ultimately deemed unconstitutional.

Obama has not declared his intent to dispense with immigration law, and the point at which permissible executive enforcement discretion becomes suspension of statutory requirements often is one of degree. In this case, however, there is little question that the line has been crossed. The president is entitled to establish enforcement priorities, but the ultimate goal must always be implementation of the law as enacted by Congress. If the president disagrees with that law, he must persuade Congress to change it.

There is Supreme Court precedent concerning the discharge of duties under the Constitution – specifically, Kendall v. United States [37 U.S. 524 (1838)], in which the Supreme Court ruled that:

”… There are certain political duties imposed upon many officers in the executive department the discharge of which is under the direction of the President. But it would be an alarming doctrine that Congress cannot impose upon any executive officer any duty they may think proper which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the Constitution, and, in such cases, the duty and responsibility grow out of and are subject to the control of the law, and not to the direction of the President …

It was urged at the bar that the Postmaster General was alone subject to the direction and control of the President with respect to the execution of the duty imposed upon him by this law, and this right of the President is claimed as growing out of the obligation imposed upon him by the Constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This is a doctrine that cannot receive the sanction of this court. It would be vesting in the President a dispensing power which has no countenance for its support in any part of the Constitution, and is asserting a principle, which, if carried out in its results to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power entirely to control the legislation of Congress and paralyze the administration of justice.

To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the Constitution, and entirely inadmissible …”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.