For as much as Obama thinks and acts like he’s above the law, there are still constitutionally minded officials in places of power to prove he is not the king of America.
Obama’s November 20th action to give illegal immigrants delayed importation status (an effective amnesty) was found to be unconstitutional by a federal judge.
So how did this ruling come to pass?
In the court case United States v. Juarez-Escobar, the defendant, Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, a 42-year-old Honduran, attempted to have the new amnesty laws applied to him, after he was found to have been driving with a 0.18 percent BAC.
Supposedly the amnesty laws were only supposed to be applied to civil cases, and illegals were to be deported.
Before 2005 Escobar entered the states illegally from Mexico. After his illegal entry he was then removed from the United States, only to come back into the U.S. again on a later date, illegally.
In April of 2014 he circumvented a traffic stop and was later apprehended and found to be driving with a BAC twice the legal limit. With him was a minor, and Escobar was charged with drunk driving and corrupting a minor. After the arrest DHS was given control over his immigration status and he was jailed in the month of July.
This is where things get interesting.
In October Escobar appeared before a magistrate. He plead guilty to entering the country illegally. On November 24th, four days after Obama’s executive action, the judge supervising the case asked counsel for Escobar and counsel for the government to address whether or not Obama’s executive action applied to the defendant in this case.
Counsel for the government said the order only applied to those who were here under civil immigration and didn’t cover the defendants criminal actions.
Counsel for Escobar argued he was covered by the executive order and entitled to not being deported because of the instability of his home country.
As noted by the Daily Signal these policies had two effects:
District Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab first addressed constitutional issues. He found that the executive action, which was implemented through the secretary of homeland security, announced two different enforcement policies: (1) expansion of deferred action to certain categories of illegal immigrants; and (2) updating of removal and deportation priorities for certain categories of illegal aliens.
The court determined that the executive action goes beyond the allowable exercise of prosecutorial discretion in two respects.
First, it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which certain individuals will be treated differently than others based on arbitrary classifications (not case-by-case determinations). Second, it confers substantive rights on illegal immigrants who fall within broad categories created by the executive action.
For these reasons, according to the judge, the executive action in effect is legislation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of powers (Congress, not the president, legislates) and the president’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
In effect the court ruled the amnesty policy was an overuse of executive privilege.
Since the action affected legal proceedings it was a law, and only congress can pass laws.
The court did not however impose an injunction on the action.
Fortunately, 17 other states have filed suit in protest of the executive order, and this new ruling gives the states more ammo for their case.
While the ruling shows the President’s action is a farce (it does refer to criminal proceedings despite his contention it only applies to civil proceedings), it’s not enough yet to scrap the order.
Keep in mind too, the plan is a designed plan. It is meant to cause the order and very fabric of these United States to unravel.
Obama fully intends to destroy the U.S.