Secretary Jeh Johnson, DAPA, and The Case For Impeachmentâ€¦

Something is missing amid all of the punditry opinion regarding the recent 5th CCA ruling upholding the injunction against Obamaâ€™s implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (â€œDAPAâ€) FULL BACKSTORY HERE. Something missing which is more serious than the injunction itself.

Obama ConstitutionFirst the underlying 26 state lawsuit has never been argued. When the states went to federal court to sue the White House (executive action) they asked for an immediate injunction blocking implementation. The states argued two points:

#1) That if DAPA was allowed to move forward with his executive amnesty there would be irreversible harm to the states. Granting a new legal status to illegal aliens, including work authorization, would be financially harmful and also a bell impossible to un-ring/reverse if the underlying lawsuit was settled in their favor.

#2) If DAPA was allowed to be implemented those who were charged with executing the Executive Order would be violating law and thereby subject to a condition of punitive action against them for refusing to break the law.

TangoLimaSierra :" "Secretary Johnson knows DAPA puts ICE and immigration officials in a precarious position of following an unconstitutional executive action."

If you comply with an EXECUTIVE order , that you know is UNCONSTITUTIONAL , then you suffer the consequences.
If you IGNORE an EXECUTIVE ORDER that you you know is unconstitutional, the your actions are considered harmless.
"(in my best German dialect):We vass only following orders" wasn't sufficient for the Second World War excuses, nor should it be now.
As directed by the Nuremburg trials : (in my best German dialogue):" Tough Kas-shitski !
Vee are all held accountable ".

Explains the injunction wasn’t the Obama corruption goal .(once again Americans bend over)...and then commentary regarding congress being unwilling to impeach Jeh Johnson.

quote:
Taking no executive action is the same thing as not deporting; but thatâ€™s not what he did â€“ he created an executive action to make those illegal aliens â€œlawful residentsâ€. Again, doing nothing is prosecutorial discretion, taking executive action is something further than discretion.

So why would Obama NOT plan to win a case, yet continue its implementation?

Think about this carefully.

Obama knows if he was able to grant the new status, and create the new category of lawful residency and employment status for 5+ million people, it would be a bell impossible to un-ring. You cannot put that amnesty toothpaste back into the tube.

Obama never planned to win the case; he planned to lose the case but in the interim have carried out the action that is irreversible. It would be impossible to make 5 million people unlawful once their new lawful status was achieved. This was/is the goal all along.

It was the â€œinjunctionâ€ that immediately became a bigger issue, because the injunction stopped them from carrying out the unconstitutional Executive Action. Therefore it was the â€œinjunctionâ€ that had to be removed if they were to be successful in the original goal.

From the article: "Again, doing nothing is prosecutorial discretion."

The rest of the argument made on the blog is fine, but the above statement is FALSE, and it can't be said often enough that it is FALSE.

Prosecutorial discretion is the good faith refusal to pursue a particular action which may or may not have merit, but which a prosecutor deems for procedural or evidential reasons The People cannot win. In other words: the prosecutor chooses to do nothing because doing nothing has exactly the same effect as bringing the case.

It can ONLY be applied on a case basis. A prosecutor DOES NOT have any discretion to refuse to prosecute a case because he disagrees with the law. A prosecutor DOES NOT have any discretion to refuse to prosecute a broad class of offenders under a law he "partially" agrees with. If prosecutors indeed possessed such "discretion" the entire understanding of "law" would be an entirely capricious exercise of raw power and nothing more.

The folly of claiming this executive order was "prosecutorial discretion" was long ago abandoned because the administration knows full well that no judge would allow a prosecutor to turn his back on the enforcement of a law involving a broad class of people. The rest of TheConservativeTreeHouse's reasoning obtains: they sought another -- perhaps less flimsy -- justification, knowing that even were it set aside, there would be no way to reverse its consequences.

The injunction blocking the implementation of the law is actually more important than overturning the order, which will never hold up, and wasn't intended to. What was intended was to let 5 million genies out of a bottle they couldn't be put back into.

Obama never planned to win the case; he planned to lose the case but in the interim have carried out the action that is irreversible. - It would be impossible to make 5 million people unlawful once their new lawful status was achieved. - This was/is the goal all along.

Check out article, and # 2 , # 3 , # 4 .

Thanks, Whenifhow.

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.