Tuesday’s House hearing, The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws, was more gripping than a wonky examination of law might suggest. Constitutionalist Tea Party Republicans were in attendance, while the Democrat side of the dais was somewhat empty. Perhaps members of the President’s party didn’t want to be seen defending him, now that Obamacare has become the disaster without end.
The House is the branch of government most damaged by the “imperial President” (a phrase used by liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley in his testimony).
The opening statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte was straightforward and specific.
Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing is about the President’s role in our constitutional system.
Our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress with writing the laws; and the Judiciary with interpreting them.
The Obama Administration, however, has ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement. [. . .]
From Obamacare to immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. But the Constitution does not confer upon the President the “executive authority” to disregard the separation of powers by unilaterally waiving, suspending, or revising the laws. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must “faithfully execute” Acts of Congress. The President cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he dislikes it. [. . .]
In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.
For instance, while Congress is currently debating how to reform our immigration laws, the President effectively enacted the DREAM Act himself by ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing the immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. [. . .]
Also noteworthy was Congressman Trey Gowdy, the former prosecutor, who asked witnesses on the panel of lawyers, “If you can suspend mandatory minimum and immigration laws, why not election laws?” referring to the President.
Professor Turley expressed his deep concern with the slow-moving Constitutional crisis and its harm done to the House of Representatives:
TURLEY (starting 6.45): The great concern I have for this body is that it is not only being circumvented, but it is also being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. Many of these questions are not close in my view; the President is outside the line. But it has to go in front of a court and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime. And that is, this body is becoming less and less relevant.
Iowa Congressman Steve King is not a lawyer, but he is well read on the Constitution. His questioning of Prof Turley brought another statement of concern about how this President is destroying the brilliant system created by the framers:
TURLEY (starting at 5.28): I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. We have a rising fourth branch in a system that was tripartite. The center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. And ithin that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.
It’s deeply troubling to see a formerly dependable sovereignty defender like Congressman Ted Poe go over to the dark side of amnesty evil. Apparently the despicable flip-flop is based upon the increased hispanicization of his district — so much for conservative principles of law and borders when re-election is threatened.
As a result of his weakened resolve, business interests are turning the screws more intently, complaining to him that there isn’t anyone to do the work, even though more than 20 million Americans can’t find jobs. (Naturally, nobody suggests that a living wage might entice citizens to take these mysterious unfilled jobs.)
Below, Ted Poe visits the border, which he used to care about enforcing.
So it is a real loss to America for him to embrace anarchy.
To be clear, Ted Poe supports legalization for the millions here unlawfully which he says is not amnesty because the lawbreakers wouldn’t get citizenship. Of course, the millions of foreigners don’t come so they can vote in US elections, but to take American jobs freely, and legalization gives them that privilege.
For that reason: Legalization Is Amnesty.
Rep. Poe’s contact info in Washington:
2412 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5547 fax
(866) 425-6565 toll free
It’s sad to hear Congressman Poe parrot the silly talking points of the left of how the immigration system is broken, when there is nothing wrong beyond the lack of political will to enforce existing laws.
If Texas Representative Ted Poe was looking for reassurance that backing an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws won’t be political suicide for conservatives like him, he may have found it this week at a seafood restaurant on the outskirts of Houston.
During a roundtable discussion, several business executives told the five-term Republican that they can’t find enough Americans willing to cook fajitas, repair sidewalks and perform other types of unglamorous work that keeps the fourth-largest U.S. city humming. A more robust guest-worker program would help, they said.
Poe told the executives he was working on a bill to tackle the problem and assured them that his fellow Republicans would help overhaul the U.S. immigration system in the coming months.
“Just doing nothing is a vote for the status quo, which is broken,” Poe said of an immigration system that has struggled to deal with the estimated 11 million undocumented residents in the United States.
As lawmakers return to their home districts in the final weeks of summer, hundreds of U.S. businesses have quietly mobilized to persuade Republicans such as Poe that an immigration overhaul is broadly supported by their constituents, even if some conservative activists loudly object.
The low-key strategy by businesses, along with a decision by several conservative lawmakers to spend the month campaigning against President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, appears to have lowered the temperature of the immigration debate.
Public “town hall” meetings held by members of Congress this month generally have not disintegrated into the raucous, racially tinged sessions on immigration that some had feared.
As a result, many involved in the effort are cautiously optimistic that one of their top priorities of the past decade could become a reality sometime in the next year and a half – even though huge obstacles remain in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
“We’re confident that this is going to get done sooner rather than later,” said Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Business and Industry.
Immigration reform has long been a top priority for business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which say that current laws and regulations make it too difficult to find workers they can’t recruit at home and expose businesses to a tangle of conflicting labor regulations.
Business groups mobilized an army of lobbyists to push for passage of a sweeping immigration bill by the Democrat-controlled Senate in June. The bill – backed by 14 of the Senate’s 46 Republicans and all 52 Democrats – included new visa programs for foreign workers, additional requirements for employers to verify workers’ legal status, billions of dollars for extra security on the nation’s borders, and a 10-year path to U.S. citizenship for undocumented workers. Continue reading this article
The loud leftist press continues to hammer Rep. Steve King about his statement that many more drug smugglers than valedictorians would be amnestied under the DREAM aspect of the big freebie legislation. Once lib scribblers agree upon an easily defined target to vilify, they are sharks smelling blood.
King stated that “for everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”
If King had used a sports metaphor, he might have been better off. If he had said “calves the size of soccer balls” it would have avoided images of hispanic agricultural pickers, which the amnesty hustlers hate with a passion. Raza types want to promote the false idea of hispanic scholastic achievers being the norm rather than the exception. The same message is attempted by DREAMer kiddies wearing graduation outfits whenever they are mooching amnesty or begging for a free college education.
In what became a heated argument, Rep. Steve King on Sunday once again defended his controversial remarks about drug smugglers among immigrants who could be legalized under the DREAM Act, setting off a tense exchange with Republican strategist Ana Navarro.
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the Iowa Republican was asked to a respond to a his remarks that “for everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”
King said his statements were accurate and have been misconstrued.
“My numbers have not been debunked. I said valedictorians compared to people who would be legalized under the act that are drug smugglers coming across the border. My characterization was exclusively to drug smugglers,” King said.
Host David Gregory said the remark had been debunked in that it was impossible to know how many valedictorians or drug smugglers would be involved in the DREAM Act.
“Then, what’s their number? How many valedictorians do they suggest? And I’ll tell you, I’ve seen the drug smugglers,” King said. “For this to be characterized by Dick Durbin as valedictorians, I’m telling the American people that I recognize that. … But this proposes to legalize a lot of people that will include the people who are drug smugglers up to the age of 35.” Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, Congressman Steve King organized a presser with several House colleagues who strongly oppose the Senate amnesty bill.
The other speakers included Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert, Mo Brooks, Steve Stockman, John Fleming and Paul Gosar.
Rep. King noted that he has been a fierce foe of Obamacare, but sees the Senate amnesty as “far, far worse.” Like the other assembled representatives, a primary focus of King is to maintain the rule of law, which amnesty shreds by the act of rewarding lawbreakers. His other concerns are cultural assimilation, border control and national security.
Rep Gohmert of Texas (a drought-troubled state) observed that it’s likely a billion or more people abroad would like to move here. He was not reassured that authorities are able to keep out dangerous persons among the millions to be amnestied when the FBI couldn’t sort out the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brother when warned about Tamerlan by Russian police.
John Fleming of Louisiana reminded listeners that the 1986 amnesty was a failure and the government should not go down that path again.
Dr. Paul Gosar of Arizona warned against a huge bill which puts too much enforcement authority in the hands of Janet Napolitano.
Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks alerted about the enormous numbers of foreigners who would like to relocate here, e.g. 20 percent of Mexicans who would come illegally. He doesn’t want millions of lawbreakers to be future Americans, who will also cost taxpayers trillions of dollars according to the recent Heritage study. An open-borders society promotes anarchy, he stated.
Steve Stockman (R-TX) emphasized fairness for legal immigrants, whose care in doing immigration the lawful way is undermined by rewarding lawbreakers.
Congressman King emphasized how the bill is really really bad. He fears a doomsday scenario in which House leadership allows a conference between the House and Senate versions that might pass legislation unfavorable to the rule of law.
Rep. King said, “That conference committee could produce from it some version of the amnesty bill and send it to the floor, unamendable, an up-or-down vote, in which case, every Democrat would vote for it, it would only take a couple of dozen Republicans, and we could be stuck with a very bad bill on the way to the president. So I’m most concerned about that and I’ll continue to talk about that.”
Are the House friends of American sovereignty waking up to the looming amnesty danger? Perhaps.
On Thursday, several of the more spine-enhanced members had a low-key presser, called a “pen-and-pad” by Roll Call (new scribbler shop talk to me). Organized by Congressman Steve King (R-IA, pictured), the event included Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Mo Brooks (R-AL).
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Thursday pulled together a group of conservative colleagues to fight back against Democratic Party and GOP establishment efforts to grant amnesty to at least 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
King organized an invitation-only press conference for reporters from several different publications, including Breitbart News, at which he and Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Lou Barletta (R-PA), and Michele Bachmann (R-MN), declared opposition to any and all efforts by career politicians inside the beltway to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants in the country.
In the 113th Congress’s immigration debate, only a handful of conservative Senators, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), have been fighting back against the amnesty attempts, especially without real border security or interior law enforcement reform. But now at least a small House contingent is joining Sessions and his conservative colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill.
King said he is speaking up now because of the “inertia” of pro-amnesty lawmakers. “[W]e’re concerned about having this wash over us and not have the opportunity for the constitutional conservatives in this country and in this Congress to have their voice heard,” he said.
King also discussed the many erroneous conclusions drawn by colleagues, such as that the presidential election was lost because of certain misstatements or verbal gaffes, such as “self-deport” or “47 percent.” He also questioned the efficacy of using the fact that George W. Bush received a high percentage of the Hispanic vote as an excuse for the disappointing results in November.
[“I think it’s high time we had this discussion,” King added. “A number of us have sat back and watched with amazement at how quickly some of our colleagues leaped to erroneous conclusions. One of them would be on the morning of November 7, when a good number of them concluded that Mitt Romney would be president-elect that morning if we had just not said ’self-deport.’ Continue reading this article
The first thing the Obama crew did with the excuse of reduced funding was to fling open the prison doors, even when the DHS has billions in spare money in reserve. How many preventable crimes against Americans have been set in motion by this rash act against public safety?
Judge Jeanine interviewed Congressman Steve King and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu. The sheriff reported the dangerous nature of many of the released foreigners, that they are convicted of crimes, not just accused. The freed criminals include drug smugglers, cartel members, weapons violaters, drug dealers, child molesters, plus persons found guilty of assault and manslaughter. Potential ICE whistleblowers who want to tell the truth about what’s going on have been threatened with severe retaliation and firing.
The judge discussed ICE Director John Morton’s Dec 21 memo limiting the confinement of criminal aliens by making the requirements unduly stringent, with the major points shown below:
“Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave…For the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process.”
(Barbara Jordan, February 24, 1995 Testimony to House Immigration Subcommittee)
English ONLY implies that non-English speakers must abandon their languages — not the case with “official” English which is far more limited. King’s bill (HB 997 text) affects only a small area of government functions, like requiring that naturalization ceremonies be held in English.
As alluded to above, another sign of incivility was rude Congressman John Conyers responding to King in lame Spanish (Watch). Conyers represents Detroit and yes, his wife is still in prison for corruption.
Below, Congressman King defended his bill in a July 25 interview on Fox News, in which the questions seemed unnecessarily snotty:
CNS’s report was at least informational, and lacked the snark of Fox.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is sponsoring a bill to make English the official language of the United States – a law he said will help “bind” Americans together at a time when the Obama administration is trying to create divisions between people.
When CNSNews.com asked why the bill should be passed, King said the “English Language Unity Act of 2012,” (H.R. 997) will unify the country.
“An official language binds us together, and there are concerted efforts on the part of the leftists in America to subdivide this country a lot of ways – down the lines of race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, profitability, class warfare,” King said. “And the Obama administration’s dividing America and an administration that’s promoting multilingualism as a function of government.
“Multilingualism is fine, but not as a function of government,because it confuses us and, it divides us, and it pits us against each other,” King said.
Thursday’s hearing of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution had two panels, including one featuring the bill’s sponsor and subcommittee member King, who has been joined in his efforts by 122 co-sponsors.
“A common language is the most powerful unifying force the world has ever known. It is more powerful than race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” King said in his prepared remarks. “The unifying official language does not have to be English, yet we are fortunate the common language of the United States of America is English.
“English is the international language of commerce, politics, maritime, and of air traffic control,” King said. “English is an incredible unifying force uniting America, knocking down ethnic, religious, and cultural barriers to make us one and is the modern lingua franca of the world.
“Today as we rally for unity and patriotism, our common form of communications currency binds us together and propels us toward our destiny,” King said. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday Rep. King appeared on Fox News and explained that the court case was about the powers belonging to Congress should not be usurped by the President via executive order. King has argued that if the President is allowed to get away with this overreach then he may well act beyond his Constitutional powers in other areas as well.
Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King told The Daily Caller that the immigration lawsuit he is leading against President Barack Obama should be filed within weeks.
King’s lawsuit is a response to Obama’s new immigration policy announced in June under executive order, an order he believes is unconstitutional.
“If the president can just pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce, you get a breakdown in the constitutional order because he’s charged with enforcing the laws,” said Steven Camarota, Director of the Research Center for Immigration Studies, to Fox News in support of King’s argument.
Though Camarota said, “it’s very tough” to win – unless he can show that an act of Congress is being nullified by the president than you might have standing or the right to sue.
Obama laid out details of his new immigration policy that will stop deporting and will issue work permits to up to 800,000 young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children and have never committed a crime.
The congressman detailed a meeting held last Tuesday with “potential co-plaintiffs” interest in signing on to King’s lawsuit.
According to King, “If the case is heard on the merits, we’re in an excellent position to succeed.”
The House Republicans have been disappointing in various ways, but particularly regarding immigration enforcement and also Obama’s increasing encroachment into powers of the legislative branch. Certainly the do-nothing no-budget Democrat Senate is a daunting roadblock, but more can be done, and Congressman King is showing one way forward.
Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King says he expects that the immigration lawsuit he is spearheading against President Obama will be filed in a court within weeks.
“I think we’re talking weeks rather than months,” King told The Daily Caller in an interview Friday about the planned legal action against Obama.
King’s lawsuit is in response to the Obama administration’s divisive announcement last month that the government would stop deporting certain illegal immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.
The congressman said a meeting was held last Tuesday with potential co-plaintiffs interested in signing on to the lawsuit to prevent the Obama administration from going through with its plan.
King, who would likely be the lead plaintiff, would not specifically name who else attended, but he said one U.S. senator, four state executive offices and five non-governmental organizations were represented at the meeting. Continue reading this article
Of course it’s amnesty. Authorization to stay and work legally is absolutely an amnesty, because the money is the reason they come. Few individual aliens care about citizenship and voting — those items are desired only by political Raza types to gain more group power.
Furthermore, Obama’s administrative amnesty can also be understood as expanding birth-right citizenship to anyone under 30. Nobody in that age group will be left out, because necessary papers will be forged to include everyone. Raza types have already complained about “second class citizenship” regarding a DREAM Act with work permits only, so they will certainly demand the whole enchilada at some point.
President Obama had said more than once that the American system of government did not allow him to decree amnesty all on his own. He even told a Univision audience in March of last year, “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”
But now, five months before the big election, niceties like the separation of powers take a back seat to hardcore political hispandering. Obama’s party totally controlled government for the first year and a half of his presidency, but didn’t try to pass an amnesty legislatively, as the law requires.
Immigration enforcement law expert Kris Kobach made a few remarks outside the court to the crowd assembled.
Interestingly, Solicitor General Donald Verelli voiced concern over foreign relations if SB 1070 were to stand, but no similar regard was reported from him for the danger to public safety if alien criminals continue to pour in.
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point. Continue reading this article
While the increased discussion of immigration in the media is welcome, much of it is of low quality, even among persons who call themselves conservatives, a group which is supposed to respect law and sovereignty.
Congressman Brian Bilbray is not one of those spouting nonsense soundbites. In a recent appearance on CNN, the Chair of the Immigration Reform Caucus made several points often missed in the current shallow debate (which routinely ignores the job displacement dimension). Bilbray emphasized that Reagan realized amnesty could only be used once, because any additional giveaways decrease Washington’s credibility for enforcement.
Rep. Bilbray also noted that any discussion of amnesty (very unpopular among US voters) sends the message around the world that America is still wide open for illegal immigration. Announcing amnesty is like opening a candy store in the middle of a freeway, he says.
The Republican chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus blasted GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Tuesday for calling to allow some illegal immigrants to remain in the country.
Speaking on CNN’s “John King, USA,” Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) likened the former House Speaker’s plan to drilling a hole in the bottom of a sinking boat to let the water out.
“Newt, I don’t care who you are,” Bilbray said. “Quit sending the mixed message that we are going to somehow reward or accommodate you if you broke the law while there are those waiting patiently and playing by the rules, waiting to come into this country legally.”
At a Republican presidential debate earlier this month, Gingrich said he supported efforts to allow tax-paying illegal immigrants without criminal records to remain in the country or gain citizenship — but only “those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart.”
Bilbray countered that as a former congressman from Georgia, Gingrich doesn’t truly understand the problem.
“I’m one of the few members of Congress to have seen what happens along the border when people from Georgia or somewhere else that don’t understand what’s going on with the immigration issue don’t take the time to go to Latin America and talk to people who are considering coming here illegally,” he said. “They don’t understand that talking about amnesty to reduce illegal immigration is about as logical as somebody saying, ‘Let’s drill a hole in the bottom of a boat to let the water out.’ You’re going to cause a whole new wave of illegal immigration.” Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.