A federal appeals court has ordered an expedited schedule for a case
brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against President Obama
over his amnesty program that is being implemented even as the case
progresses.
The order released Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit said the brief for the appellants is due
Jan. 29, and the government’s brief in defense of amnesty will be due
March 2.
“Due to the expedited nature of this case, the court will not
entertain dispositive motions. The parties should therefore address in
their briefs any arguments otherwise properly raised in such motions,”
said the order.
“The president does not have the authority to rewrite immigration
laws. Legislation and national policy are enacted by Congress, not the
president,” said Larry Klayman of
Freedom Watch, who is representing the famous Arizona sheriff.
Arpaio explained in the original complaint that he’ll be affected
directly because he’ll have to deal locally with a multitude of
criminals who remain in the U.S. under Obama’s plan rather than being
deported and out of his jurisdiction.
“It is a big victory [for] Sheriff Arpaio and, indeed, the American
people that the D.C. Circuit recognized the need for this case to be
quickly resolved before Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty program goes
into full effect this spring,” Klayman said. “There are constitutional
issues of great magnitude at stake, and we are confident that the D.C.
Circuit will put a legal stop to this illegal activity, which seeks to
end-run congressional authority.
“I am grateful for Sheriff Arpaio’s courage in pursuing the very necessary legal action,” he said.
In earlier filings,Arpaio and
Klayman argued that some aspects of amnesty already have begun taking
effect, and the federal government is preparing to hired thousands of
workers to process illegal aliens under amnesty.
The goal of the case at the outset was to obtain a ruling from the
Supreme Court on Obama’s strategy to use notes to federal agencies,
called executive memoranda, to change the law, rather than going through
Congress.
Klayman said the request to accelerate the case was submitted because
the lower court made a mistake in dismissing it. He contends a
preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent “irreparable harm”
from Obama’s “unconstitutional executive actions granting amnesty to
roughly 5 million illegal aliens.”
“Time is of the essence, since the brunt of Obama’s amnesty will
occur in February,” Klayman said in his announcement about the case.
“As the old adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied. The D.C.
Circuit has a duty to move quickly to protect the citizens of Arizona
and the nation from the harmful effects of allowing for the continued
horde of illegal criminal aliens who will not now be deported to remain
in the United States, as was required under existing law before Obama
issued his executive actions. And, an early decision will also allow the
Supreme Court discretion to review Obama’s executive actions at the
earliest practicable time,” said a statement on the dispute.
According to Sheriff Arpaio: “This act by the president will have a
serious detrimental impact on my carrying out the duties and
responsibilities for which I am encharged as sheriff. Specifically, if a
preliminary injunction is not swiftly entered, Obama’s illegal
executive actions will severely strain and cause severe harm to our
crime-fighting resources, both in manpower and financially, necessary to
protect the citizens I was elected to serve.”
What do YOU think? Do you expect Obama’s amnesty to be stopped? Sound off in today’s WND poll!
The changes already are being made, and it will be a wasted effort if
there eventually is a ruling that the amnesty program is not
constitutional, the filing explains.
“The entire enforcement mechanism of DHS, including the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement must
abruptly undergo a massive change to stop enforcing the immigration laws
and then seek to understand precisely and apply the new criteria so as
to exempt from enforcement, even for deportations already imminent,
anyone who might potentially qualify for these new programs,” the
submission explains.
“A new program granting amnesty to at least 1 million more illegal
aliens is scheduled to begin accepting applications for the granting of
amnesty no later than February 19, 2015,” the brief explains. “A new
program granting amnesty to … approximately 4 million additional illegal
aliens is scheduled to begin accepting applications for the granting of
amnesty no later than May 20, 2015, which requires the appellees to
finalize and publish application guidelines, forms, etc.”
The changes in U.S. law already have begun, it explains.
“On November 20, 2014, by a barrage of memoranda from Secretary [Jeh]
Johnson containing various orders, issued at President Barack Obama’s
order, appellees both expanded and extended [deferred action privilege]
to new categories of ‘childhood arrivals’ as well as to citizens of
foreign countries illegally present in the United States who are parents
of U.S. citizens or of Lawful Permanent Residents, (typically green
card holders), as well as created other programs giving amnesty and/or
other benefits to illegal aliens.”
Worse yet, the “executive action” actually “creates an immediate
magnet for millions more illegal aliens to rush the border,” the filing
warns. It cites the crisis in 2014 when “tens of thousands of children
from Central America” crossed illegally through Mexico to reach the U.S.
border.
“Some children lost limbs or their lives jumping on to the train or
while riding on it. Other children were raped or abused or turned into
slaves or diverted to sex trafficking. No one knows how many of those
children died in the desert attempting to reach the United States.”
“Allowing the executive branch to immediately implement the
president’s DACA and executive amnesty programs will cause irreparable
harm, including to those illegal aliens the programs seek to enroll, if
the federal courts later determine the programs to be unlawful,” the
brief argues.
Klayman had argued at the district court level: “This was important
because as we speak, millions of illegal aliens are in the process of
being granted amnesty. As presented to the court, a large number of
these illegal aliens will be back onto the streets of Maricopa County
and the nation as a whole. Many of these illegals are repeat criminal
offenders. This puts a great strain on the resources of Sheriff Arpaio’s
office and endangers the people of Maricopa County.”
He contended Obama “cannot end-run Congress based on his own ‘emperor-like’ actions.”
“By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the power to
take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman said. “To allow
this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and
set a bad precedent for future presidents.”
He argued the status quo should be maintained until Congress changes the national law.
WND reported when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the
separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as
well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,”
said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.
The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the
most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his
executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass
legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.
“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement
that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the
president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”
Quoting from a previous precedent, the judge said that in the
“framework of our Constitution, the president’s power to see that the
laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a
lawmaker.”
“The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to
the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he
thinks bad,” Schwab said.
The judge said Obama’s contention that Congress had not worked in his time frame was largely irrelevant.
When
The
Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has
been designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, today
included in its “American Muslim News Briefs” mailing an item entitled
“CAIR Asks Fox News to Drop Islamophobes.” Most of it was made up of the
usual smears, lies and distortions that Hamas-linked CAIR pumps out by
the gallon. It also contained this:
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
