WASHINGTON, December 9, 2014 — Lawless and abusive is the only way to label Obama’s presidential immigration executive order. And, there is probably no state in America that has the ability to fight against Obama’s unconstitutional executive immigration order than Texas. Texas leads a 17-state coalition which is intent on sending Obama’s immigration order across the border along with the 5 million plus illegal immigrants it covers. According to KERA News, Greg Abbott who is currently Attorney General and now governor-elect filed a federal lawsuit which challenged Obama’s administration over illegally expanding legal protection for illegal immigrants.
What is telling about this federal lawsuit is two important points. First, Abbott, the leader of this tightly knit state’s right coalition is committed to fighting Obama’s reckless approach to disregarding the U.S. Constitution on constitutional grounds. Second, Abbot has experience is tackling Obama’s illegal actions, by already filing 30 federal lawsuits against his administration over the last 12 years.
The Texas attorney general relies upon Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states in part, “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This is crucial because as the Texas attorney general stressed, “The president’s executive order and actions of federal agencies to implement the executive order directly violate a promise to the American people.”
While there are many liberal legal pundits who automatically dismiss Abbott and the 16 other states’ legal contention, it is apparent they have more than one legal leg to stand on. The loud protests against Abbott and the states fighting the executive order are seemingly based upon ill-founded moral rather than legal arguments. Michael Olivas, who is a professor at the University of Houston and an immigration lawyer, bases his opposition to Abbot as being simply, “ill-advised.” He added, “I don’t think he has standing,” reported KERA News.
What Olivas appears to ignore is that in order to have legal standing, one has to be impacted by the legal or illegal action. The Lone Star state and the sixteen other states have standing in spades. The suit which was filed in the Southern District of Texas alleges that “Obama’s actions are unconstitutional and violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act.” It also stated that the president’s order will “exacerbate” the border crisis and force impacted states to spend more on law enforcement, health care and education.
By forcing states to use their own tax dollars to fulfill an executive order that Obama has mandated by imperial fiat instead of legislative action, he has also violated, Article 1, Section 7 and Section 8. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
The president has legislated from the Oval Office by forcing states through executive order and executive action to take legislative and financial responsibilities that only congress has the constitutional mandate to carry out under the U.S. Constitution. There is legal precedent for U.S. Supreme Court intervention and revocation of Obama’s unilateral presidential legislative action.
In 1952 the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s executive action to seize the steel mills by way of his Secretary of Commerce. In “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,” which is now known as the Steel Seizure Case, Truman was angry like Obama over slow moving action on an issue important to him. Truman was frustrated because contract dispute negotiations between the Wage Stabilization Board and the United Steel Workers Union were not moving as quickly as he wanted them to.
Acting outside of his presidential constitutional authority he used his executive action to seize private property in order to force action and movement on an issue that he decided needed to be completed. The Supreme Court strongly disagreed and wrote that “The President’s power, if any, to issue an order must stem from an act of Congress or the United States Constitution.”
This is key, because Obama like Truman believed that his executive power to grant five plus million immigrants is implied. But he is patently wrong, as in the Truman case, “The President’s power, if any, to issue an order must stem from an act of Congress or the United States Constitution.” There was no act of congress that was utilized by Obama.
In essence, he does not have the authority to legislate by forcing states to spend tax money in order to carry out an illegal executive-legislative action. Again, one only has to go back to the U.S. Constitution; Article One, Section One: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
As President, Obama runs the same onerous risk that Truman and even Clinton did before him, based upon the Heritage Foundation’s legal analysis of use and abuse of executive orders. In abusing his executive order authority to undermine the constitutional separation of powers, Obama like Roosevelt, Truman and Clinton before him, he risks several serious violations of the U.S. Constitution. In the end the U.S. Supreme Court will have to rule against his executive legislative overreach for the good of the nation and the U.S. Constitution.