Judge to hold hearing on Arpaio, Taitz roles in immigration suit

The main front in the legal war over President Barack Obama's immigration policies may have moved to the Supreme Court, but a federal judge in Texas isn't letting that stop him from taking up a curious side issue in the case: whether birther Orly Taitz and controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio are entitled to join the fight.

Both sides in the lawsuit that halted Obama's latest round of immigration moves nearly a year ago have told U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen they want the case put on ice until the Supreme Court announces whether it will take up the major executive power dispute - a decision expected as soon as next month.

In a little-noticed order earlier this month, Hanen set a hearing for Tuesday afternoon on the proposal to stay the case. However, he went on to say he wanted the parties to address whether to allow several other individuals to intervene in the litigation, among them Taitz and Arpaio.

"The Court ... wants the parties and those who have expressed an interest in becoming parties to be ready to address the extent to which the intervenors are going to participate in this matter," Hanen wrote.

The judge's call to dive into the issue and for the proposed intervenors or their attorneys to show up in person has left some immigrants' rights advocates suspicious.

"You've got a joint motion to stay the merits. ... It's difficult to understand why this has to be taken up right now as the Supreme Court is considering it," said David Leopold, an Ohio-based immigration attorney and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers' Association. "It has the potential of unnecessarily adding more politics to a case that's already politically charged."

Last month, a split three-judge appeals court panel sided with Hanen and refused to overturn his injunction against Obama's new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans initiative and his expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. However, the same panel voted unanimously to uphold the rights of three unnamed illegal immigrants to intervene in the case to protect their interests.

Fifth Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod gave various reasons for the ruling and noted that one reason the women cited was that the federal government may have alienated Hanen by issuing about 100,000 permits despite the injunction. The feds have blamed the issuances on bureaucratic foul-ups and have insisted the government did not intend to mislead the court.

Hanen said in his order (posted here) that he is "particularly concerned about the possible applicability of [the appeals court ruling] to parties beyond the three Jane Does discussed therein." He went on to list Taitz, Arpaio and several other people who sought to join in the high-profile court battle.

In July, Hanen threw out a lawsuit Taitz brought Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and others over various aspects of federal immigration policy. The following month, a federal appeals court in Washington upheld the dismissal of a similar case in which Arpaio challenged the legality of Obama's moves to make millions more immigrants who entered the country illegally, or overstayed visas, eligible for quasi-legal status and work permits.

Thank you for referencing that article Elderberry. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

As a side note to this thread concerning Obamas so-called immigration policies, please consider the following.

"The main front in the legal war over President Barack Obama's immigration policies may have moved to the Supreme Court,"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument

The federal governments constitutional authority to address immigration issues was clarified 200+ years ago. This is evidenced by the excerpts below from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution. Both efferson and Madison had indicated that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, immigration uniquely a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.

Here is the relevant excerpt from Jeffersons writing.

” 4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ”the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,â€ the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the - day of July, 1798, intituled ”An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” - Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.

And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.

”That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the â€œAlien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, . . .
. . .
. . . the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ” - James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.

Please note that even if the states had constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate immigration that the president can only sign or veto immigration bills made by Congress. In other words, federal lawmakers are wrongly letting Obama steal legislative branch powers so that Obama can do Congresss dirty work for it. By letting last-term Obama get away with regulating immigration, something that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to do, corrupt lawmakers are likely protecting their voting records to help them get reelected.

Hearing held today in Texas v US. Attorney Taitz argued before Judge Andrew Hanen. Sheriff Arpaio didn’t show up.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 15:47

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2015/12/hearing-held-today-in-texas-v-us-attorney-taitz-argued-before-judge-andrew-hanen-sheriff-arpaio-didnt-show-up-2497216.html

U.S. District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 12/15/2015 at 3:55 PM CST and filed on 12/15/2015
Case Name: State of Texas et al v. United States of America et al
Case Number: 1:14-cv-00254
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached

Docket Text:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew S. Hanen. MOTION HEARING held on 12/15/2015. Appearances: Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Angela V. Colmenero; Adam Nicholas Bitter; Attorneys for Defendants: John R. Tyler; Jennifer D. Ricketts; Daniel Hu; Adam D. Kirschner; Attorney Nina Perales for Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3; Attorney Orly Taitz for Orly Taitz; (Court Reporter: Sheila Heinz)(01:34-02:26) Discussion held as to [311]. [311] Joint MOTION to Stay Merits Proceedings Pending Resolution of Supreme Court Review -GRANTED as outlined in todays hearing. Discussion held as to [91] MOTION to Intervene by Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3. Discussion held as to [137] MOTION to Intervene as an Additional Plaintiff by Orly Taitz and Court will take under advisement. Parties may file any pleadings by 01/08/16., filed.(csustaeta, 1)

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.