Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that "all" legislative powers belong to Congress. The concept of "separation of powers" disallows the President from acting legislatively, since those authorities belong to Congress. Article II, Section 3 also tasks the President with "faithfully" executing the laws of the United States.
Legislative Powers are defined as "making law, modifying law, and repealing law." The executive branch was never granted by the States any legislative powers. The job of the President is not to legislate, but to execute the laws on the books.
Even the courts, who are normally allies of the statists in the Democrat Party, are challenging President Obam's seizure of powers. Recently, a federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.
The 2-1 ruling places Mr. Obama's unilateral immigration plans in a precarious position, placing judicial limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to achieve congressional approval.
Judge Jerry E. Smith in an opinion he wrote targeted Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.
The President continuously claims he can act without Congress (an accusation he leveled at the Bush administration way back when he was running for President in 2008 while claiming he would reverse that trend in the executive branch).
Barack Obama in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions on immigration, while facing a heckler in the crowd, agreed that deportations has been up, and used that piece of data as an excuse for his unconstitutional actions. “But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” the president said.
“At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes,” Judge Smith wrote.
Texas and 25 other states have sued to stop Obama's unilateral executive branch ordered amnesty. The federal district court in Texas, it seems, agrees with the States and has put a halt on Mr. Obama’s unconstitutional policy. Now, after an appeal, an appeals court also agrees with the States.
Mr. Obama’s plan, known officially as Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals, or DAPA, was intended to grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants a proactive three-year stay of deportation and to give them work permits, allowing them to come out of the shadows and join American society — though they were still considered to be in the country illegally. To qualify, illegal immigrants had to be parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident children.
The president characterized his plan as a use of prosecutorial discretion, reasoning that he was never going to deport them anyway, so they should be granted some more firm status.
The immigration issue is an important issue to the American People. Donald Trump's hard stance on immigration, where he demands that we secure the border, and do so with a wall between the two countries, has vaulted Mr. Trump to the top of the polls in the 2016 race to become the GOP nomination for President.
President Obama is now prepared to take this all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. The high court was willing to spit on the Constitution for him in regards to Obamacare and marriage, so Obama believes that surely his allies on the court, and the fearful justices that would normally oppose him, will bend over backwards to set fire to the U.S. Constitution for President Obama. After all, with this case, he's providing them with a box of matches.
All Obama needs, in his opinion, is a court with a majority of judges saying he didn't exceed his authority. The truth no longer matters. The law no longer matters. All that matters is that he can pull together the right people to make it look legal. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the ruling would come likely next summer, just in time for the presidential election of 2016. In short, the case will make the immigration issue the main issue, and the ruling could very well be influential enough to decide the 2016 election.
The New York Times states that a decision by the Supreme Court would also have a long-lasting impact on the president’s legacy, shaping how future generations assess Mr. Obama’s ability to confront what he has called one of the generation’s great civil rights issues. And it would mark the latest test of Mr. Obama’s agenda, after Supreme Court rulings on women’s rights, health care, the environment and the exercise of presidential power.
My assessment is that the decision could actually mark a turning point in the history of the United States regarding whether we hang on to the rule of law through the United States Constitution, or succumb to tyranny and the "rule of man." The latter would indeed have a long-lasting impact on Obama's legacy, labeling him as the President that finally destroyed the American System and ushered America into a new age, one that would become marked by a massive uptick in government control over the citizens. Obama may even be lucky enough to earn the title, "America's first dictator," as was Julius Caesar in Rome.
When the Federalist Party lost Congress and the White House to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans in 1800, John Adams hurriedly issued commissions for a horde of new judges. The exercise was later remembered as the hiring of "midnight judges." When it was all over, and after Jefferson disallowed the last of the commissions to be delivered, the third President of the United States commented, "The principal [leaders of the political opposition] have retreated into the judiciary as a stronghold, the tenure of which renders it difficult to dislodge them." --Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1801.
Jefferson's prediction became true when Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case seized the power of judicial review, an unconstitutional concept that has allowed the courts to rip up and reassemble the Constitution in their own image through the use of case law and precedent. The courts, still to this day, use the concept to bypass and circumvent the U.S. Constitution, and to this day constitutionalists have been unable to dislodge the activist judges from the stronghold of the judiciary, despite their bad behavior of unconstitutional rulings that, according to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, should be enough of a reason to impeach each and every one of them.
It seems Obama is trying to use the courts to okay his tyrannical, unconstitutional actions, in the hopes that his allies still remain in the stronghold of the judiciary, and if history can be used to help us determine what will happen, the Supreme Court of the United States will likely rule in favor of Obama's unconstitutional tyranny.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in its ruling that the immigration program set up by the president’s actions — known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans — did not follow proper administrative procedures and went beyond the power that Congress has authorized for a president.
Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, which led the 26-state coalition that filed the lawsuit against the president’s actions, called the lower court decision a “vindication for the rule of law and the Constitution.”
“The president’s job is to enforce the immigration laws, not rewrite them,” Mr. Abbott said. “President Obama should abandon his lawless executive amnesty program and start enforcing the law today.”