Posted on 11/24/2014 9:53:50 AM PST by Enterprise
Edited on 11/24/2014 10:04:42 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Obama is sneering at the Republicans again, telling them to "pass a bill" regarding immigration. The Democrats are taunting the Republicans and daring them to do something.
Over the weekend there was discussion about the Keyword: shamnesty Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 "NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES" (Required) (Hat tip to FReeper Xzins)
It appears that there doesn't need to be another "bill" passed, as this ACT is supposed to prevent Obama from doing exactly what he is doing.
But I think FReepers may agree with me: So What?
Over the weekend there was discussion about the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 "NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES" (Required)
It appears that there doesn't need to be another "bill" passed, as this ACT is supposed to prevent Obama from doing exactly what he is doing.
But I think FReepers may agree with me: So What? It doesn't matter about the act, or any bills the Republicans may pass. Obama will ignore them.
It doesn't matter if the USSC tells Obama to cease and desist, or even if it holds him in contempt. Obama will ignore it.
It doesn't matter if Congress shuts down the Government or attempts to "defund" what Obama is doing. Obama will ignore Congress and continue with his immigration invasion implementation.
Of course, we know that impeachment won't work because the same Democrats in the Senate who support the invasion are going to be the ones who would have to vote to convict and remove Obama, and that WILL NOT HAPPEN!
What is left?
McConnell and Boehner, and Republicans in general must admit to themselves that they are truly powerless to stop Obama now. They must admit that we have had in essence a coup d'etat, and we have now have the beginnings of a dictatorship. Sooner or later, sooner I hope, they will have to go to the people explain to them the gravity of what has happened. They need to explain that Obama has checkmated the Legislative and Judicial branch, and we no longer have a functioning Democracy.
Ping
Technically, we never had a democracy, but a constitutional republic.
When giving a message to the masses, they understand Democracy as opposed to constitutional republic. If the leaders told them we no longer have a functioning constitutional republic they won’t know what the leaders are talking about.
Please don't confuse us with the facts. We're on a roll here. :)
I think this may very well be the way Obama, Reid & Co. are thinking. However, I think they will be in for a rude awaking. This is America not some third-world country. Americans love our independence and freedom and we’re armed to the teeth and will fight like hell to keep our freedom.
We’ve always held elections on schedule, rain or shine regardless of hard times, strife, war, even civil war. For one thing, our sovereign states in reality and per the constitution and regardless of what the feds may claim otherwise are in charge. The states run the elections, not the feds. And the states are backed up by state guards and armed militia under the command of the state governors. And right now, 30 some odd state governors out of 50- are Republicans. And 66 percent of the state legislatures are controlled by Republicans.
Now would not be a good time for the Marxist Obama and the feds to get too pushy (with or without the help of the traitorous GOPe leadership). Americans love and defend our independence, our constitution, our Declaration, our founding principles and our God-given Liberty.
We will not stand for some jive turkey communist bastard spitting in the eye of our SCOTUS or attempting to block elections or declare martial law as an attempt to overthrow our constitutional government.
If this is Obama’s plan, he’d better pack a lunch and bring a lantern. It’s going to be a long day for him.
If he wants our freedom, he can come and take it!!
Don’t tread on me!!
And that is why we are in the mess we are in.
Deeply agree!!
He is going to push and push until someone stops him and not before. I hope to live to see the day when, beneath the American flag, the Gadsden flag is flown in Washington D.C.
Hey, maybe that actually will force the Pubes to grow a pair! What a public humiliation.
I’m sure of that. And it won’t be the likes of McConnell or Boehner or Roberts stopping him either. It’s rapidly approaching the time that our states are going to have to reassert their sovereignty and reclaim their constitutional rights and powers. And that will depend on we the people pushing hard. Keep your powder dry.
Get this...
Republicans could fire all of Obama's liberal judges, create a new lower court system, and make Obama nominate a brand new set of federal judges.
If Obama wants to play "chicken" with the Constitution, then so can Congress.
Article III Section 1 says:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Congress can redo the entire inferior court structure, disbanding the current courts and building up a new court, without passing a bill that requires Obama's signature. Article III gives CONGRESS the power to establish courts, so a Presidential signature would abolish that Congressional power. Also, this is not a court-packing scheme because it does not involve the Supreme Court, only the lower courts.
A bold Congress should float the idea that they will disband all of the liberal-leaning lower judiciary and replace it with a new judiciary structured around today's demographic realities. That could mean: changing the circuits to map to different states, replacing state-based circuits with something else (how about, citizen courts, resident alien courts, "other courts"?).
What do you think?
-PJ
If the constitution acted only on the people, and ignored the states, a congress composed of reps of the people would be consistent with republican theory.
However, our constitution acts on both the people and the states, and until 1913, both were represented, as they should be in the law-giving body, congress.
It makes as much sense under our system to deny congressional representation to the people as it does to deny it to the states.
It is amazing that this internal contradiction, of government without consent of the states, took so long to destroy our nation.
The 17th left in its wake a federal constitution without a federal government.
We have had rogue judges invalidating our votes and that of our representatives. We have unelected unions and unelected government agency heads creating laws, taxes and regulations. We have government agencies that choose which laws to enforce. We have government agencies using their resources to target us, spy on us, and threaten us. And we have government agencies that choose the winners and the losers.
They all worked in conjunction with this president, not the people. But that wasn’t good enough for President Obama. Now, every city is a sanctuary city.
It can’t be about the vote. A vote doesn’t mean anything anymore.
What cannot be denied after this executive action, is that “comprehensive” legislation is a NON starter. obama as proved he will ignore portions of black letter law at his discretion. Any legislation giving authority for legalizing illegals, along with strenghening the border, will find the strengthening portions ignored under prosecutorial discretion. NO on the senate format for remedy. Piecemeal bills only, enforcement, guards, monitors, also remove judges and appeals from the process - streamline and get rid of judicial bottlenecks.
In 2011 Newt Gingrich at Values Voter Summit – How to Fight Back Against Out-of-Control Judges speech Newt said at the 4:54 mark: “One of the major reasons that I am running for President of the United States is the 9th Circuit Court decision in 2002 that ‘One Nation Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional”
At the 6:48 mark, Newt says: “…because if judges think they are unchallengeable they are inedible corrupt. Corrupted in a moral sense. I don’t mean taking money, but I mean in a sense of arrogance, in the sense of imposing on the rest of us. Whether it is one judge in California deciding he knows more than 8 million Californians about the definition of marriage, whether it is a judge San Antonio who rules that not only can school children can not say a prayer at their graduation, they can not use the word benediction, they can not use the word invocation, they can not use the word God, they can not ask the audience to stand, and if they do any of these things, he will lock up their superintendent.
Now the idea of an American judge becoming a dictator of words is so alien to our tradition, and such a violation of our Constitution as I will explain in a moment, that that judge should be removed from office summarily. “
At the 10:53 mark, Newt says: “Jefferson is the most clear example of taking on the judiciary, in the Judicial Reform Act of 1802, the Jeffersonians eliminated 18 out of 35 federal judges. Didn’t impeach them, just abolish their office and told them to go home.
Now I’m not, let me be clear, I am not as bold as Jefferson. I think the judge in San Antonio would be an important initial signal and I think the 9th Circuit Court should be served notice that it runs the risk of ceasing to exist.”
I don't think I understand this sentence - that doesn't sound like a good thing - the President could abolish Congress's power?
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.