Our President is currently shoving down the throats of the United States citizens,HIS planned deferred illegal immigrant implementation per HIS executive action. In the news Friday, came the notice that he has told DHS to continue moving forward with those plans in their entirety despite Judge Hanlen’s temporary stay until ruled in Federal Court. He openly stated as has the Attorney General that they intend to pursue this matter in court saying they believed there was legal authority, yet he continues to ignore the very foundations of our legal system in the process.
I found a notice from the Department of Justice which provided their opinion to the DHS and the President during November 2014 as they interpreted the constitution and laws on this matter. It certainly seems to counter his claim.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others
They were asked their opinion on questions concerning this action and I am ONLY including the sentences I believe are most relevant to the issue at hand in my blog. It is left to those with the knowledge and power from that point to interpret and consider in light of Obama’s blatant manipulations.
“DHS’s authority to remove aliens from the United States rests on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”), as amended, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.q. In the INA, Congress established a comprehensive scheme governing immigration and naturalization. The INA specifies certain categories of aliens who are inadmissible to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182. “
Even I can see, they believe the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended was comprehensive!
“As a general rule, when Congress vests enforcement authority in an executive agency, that agency has the discretion to decide whether a particular violation of the law warrants prosecution or other enforcement action. This discretion is rooted in the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and it reflects a recognition that the “faithful” execution of the law does not necessarily entail “act[ing] against each technical violation of the statute” that an agency is charged with enforcing. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985)…”
Nice, clear organizational authority here, I would say.
Nonetheless, the nature of the Take Care duty does point to at least four general (and closely related) principles governing the permissible scope of enforcement discretion that we believe are particularly relevant here. First, enforcement decisions should reflect “factors which are peculiarly within [the enforcing agency’s] expertise.” Chaney, 470 U.S. at 831. Those factors may include considerations related to agency resources, such as “whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action,” or “whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another.” Id. Other relevant considerations may include “the proper ordering of [the agency’s] priorities,” id. at 832, and the agency’s assessment of “whether the particular enforcement action [at issue] best fits the agency’s overall policies,” id. at 831. “
This seems tell DPS in reasonable and clear terms to follow constitutional law as written by Congress and gives parameters for how to control their department. I doubt if I received that opinion, I would misunderstand the limits of my ability to make decisions.
“Second, the Executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences. See id. at 833 (an agency may not “disregard legislative direction in the statutory scheme that [it] administers”). In other words, an agency’s enforcement decisions should be consonant with, rather than contrary to, the congressional policy underlying the statutes the agency is charged with administering. Cf. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring) (“When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb.”); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007) (explaining that where Congress has given an agency the power to administer a statutory scheme, a court will not vacate the agency’s decision about the proper administration of the statute unless, among other things, the agency “‘has relied on factors which Congress had not intended it to consider’” (quotingMotor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983))).
And if I had a question about organizational chain of command in following the law, this sure as heck would get my attention.
“Third, the Executive Branch ordinarily cannot, as the Court put it in Chaney, “‘consciously and expressly adopt a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” 470 U.S. at 833 n.4 (quoting Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159, 1162 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (en banc)); see id. (noting that in situations where an agency had adopted such an extreme policy, “the statute conferring authority on the agency might indicate that such decisions were not ‘committed to agency discretion’”). Abdication of the duties assigned to the agency by statute is ordinarily incompatible with the constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws. But see, e.g., Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes, 18 Op. O.L.C. 199, 200 (1994) (noting that under the Take Care Clause, “the President is required to act in accordance with the laws—including the Constitution, which takes precedence over other forms of law”).
Finally, lower courts, following Chaney, have indicated that non-enforcement decisions are most comfortably characterized as judicially unreviewable exercises of enforcement discretion when they are made on a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., Kenney v. Glickman, 96 F.3d 1118, 1123 (8th Cir. 1996); Crowley Caribbean Transp., Inc. v. Peña, 37 F.3d 671, 676–77 (D.C. Cir. 1994)……………
HMMMM let’s see if I understand this correctly, DHS had standing opinion from the legal minds in the Department of Justice back in November 2014; and yet, They and Obama took it upon themselves to set up and move forward with something the Department of Justice clearly in this wording said was NOT acceptable according to their considered opinion.
I am neither an attorney nor one who understands the many facets of the legal system in our country. I am, however, one who at least attempts to understand the workings of our system.
YOU Wanna explain, DHS, why you felt you have the right or authority to follow the President’s lead especially since this opinion is especially clear even to me where on the chart you take your orders overall? More importantly this opinion CLEARLY states from a fully recognized, legitimately respected department in the federal government just how far Obama is stepping out of line in his attempt to autocratically rule our country.