Court Slaps Obama With Constitution: Amnesty Undermines 'Constitutional Imperative of "Uniform Rule of Naturalization"'

By Terence P. Jeffrey | May 26, 2015 | 11:58 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dealt a stinging rebuke to President Barack Obama today when it refused a call from his administration to overturn an injunction preventing the administration from moving forward with the president's plan to provide amnesty to as many as 4.3 million illegal aliens through its so-called "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents" program.

In its straightforward conclusion against the administration's claims, the court directly quoted the U.S. Constitution and the immigration law of the United States.

In its argument to the court, the administration had argued that the injunction was wrong because a single court should not be able to impose an injunction on the implentation of the president's amnesty program nationwide. It also argued that the 26 states suing to stop the president's unilateral action were not suffering any real damage that gave them standing to sue the federal government in court.

The court ruled that the fact that Texas had to either pay $130.89 for each license it issued to an illegal alien granted legal status by the administration or else change the state's driver's license law was, in fact, a real injury. The federal government, the court said, could not force a state to choose between changing its legitimate laws or raising taxes or fees.

"The district court found that Texas would lose at least $130.89 on each license it issues to a DAPA beneficiary, and the United States does not dispute that calculation on appeal," said the court.
"It is well established that a financial loss generally constitutes an injury so Texas is likely to meet its burden."

"That well-established caselaw is dispositive because if pressure to change state law in some substantial way were not injury, states would have no standing to challenge bona fide harms because they could offset most financial losses by raising taxes or fees," said the court. "Texas's forced choice between incurring costs and changing its laws is an injury because those laws exist for the administration of a state program, not to challenge federal law, and Texas did not enact them merely to create standing."\

In its conclusion, the appeals court said that the president's amnesty program would undermine the constitutional language granting Congress the power to make a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" and would run counter to the express language immigration law enacted by Congress that calls for the law to be "enforced vigorously and uniformly."

"The government maintains that the nationwide scope of the injunction is an abuse of discretion, so it asks that the injunction be confined to Texas or the plaintiff states," says the appeals court in its conclusion. "But partial implementation of DAPA would undermine the constitutional imperative of 'a uniform Rule of Naturalization' and Congress's instruction that 'the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.' A patchwork system would 'detract[] from the "integrated scheme of regulation" created by Congress.' Further, there is a substantial likelihood that a partial injunction would be ineffective because DAPA beneficiaries would be free to move between states."

"The motion to stay the preliminary injunction or narrow its scope pend-ing appeal is DENIED," said the court.

While the U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is enforcing an injunction ordering President Obama not to implement his DAPA amnesty program, the Republican-controlled Congress passed an appropriations legislation for this fical year, which runs through Sept. 30, that permits the president to use taxpayer money to implement the program.

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

YAY TEXAS JUDGE! You just handed me the presidency. Heck, you just made it somewhat difficult for my opponent to even win Texas. Good job, bro!

Signed,

Hillary

First, we must understand the simplicity of the following, , , ,: "In its straightforward conclusion against the administration's claims, the court directly quoted the U.S. Constitution and the immigration law of the United States."

Okay, yes, yes, we all KNOW that the U.S. Constitution is a hateful document and, as such, it is one of the main reasons why the Unicorns have not returned to Earth, , , ,. Although, , , , it is not likely to be changed any time in the near future. Perhaps, "get over it" is appropriate.

On the other hand, in regard to "immigration law", , , , yes it may need to be adjusted, and yes, the Republicans will be "on the hook" to do something about it if this case goes to the Supremes and, as is most likely, the lower Court is upheld.

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

LOL. Right now some Fishkiller is picturing dudes in powdered wigs as somehow related to post-1924 immigration to the US. Just though that was funny.

By its design, there is going to have to be proactive WORK done, restructuring, etc. so states like Texas aren't injured financially, which brings up this clever result:



Which is how Republican chances of hanging on to a majority and getting the presidency in 2016 just went from "slim" to "none".

There is no option now but to have a feasible, humane and economically functional plan to deal with immigration. Republicans have publicly and loudly balked at all of the above for a good 18 years (there was the godfather's pizza dude who thought some electric wire would be the ticket, though, and the governator said "Somebody's gotta do, uh, something" a bunch of times, but that's been about it).

In years past, there was some walking room. Now they're in a corner, the paint's wet, and the door is on the opposite wall.

These chumps aren't even smart enough to know that this plays directly into the democrats' hands.

Well done!

-------------------------
Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.

In biology, such behavior of cells is called "cancer".

The Administration is getting into a corner on this; the Constitution is what it is, and the Court is saying that immigration is a Congressional matter: "But partial implementation of DAPA would undermine the constitutional imperative of 'a uniform Rule of Naturalization' and Congress's instruction that 'the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.' A patchwork system would 'detract[] from the "integrated scheme of regulation" created by Congress.'

So, in the end, it will be up to Congress to resolve the issue, not the current and/or future "Administration".

And, so, , , , perhaps the Constitution should be changed to bring it "up to date" with currently perceived "realities". BUT, what are the snowball chances in Hell that Congress would ever be able to present a passible, workable, Amendment for the States to ratify?

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

BUZZ -wrong. The issue is the White House, not deferred action on immigration. It was all along, suckers.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.


-------------------------
Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.

In biology, such behavior of cells is called "cancer".

I don't see it hurting. As we all know, most legal immigrants are for legal immigration. Only illegal aliens are for illegal immigration.

Can't blame Republicans, blame the Constitution. We all know you progs hate the Constitution anyway.

If you say so it must be true, so good luck with that.

-------------------------
Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.

In biology, such behavior of cells is called "cancer".

Bye bye Hispanic vote.

Couldn't be happier with the decision.

-------------------------
I was right.