Many have accused the opponents to Obama’s amnesty as simply playing political games. As if the right has no care for those millions of people Obama was fixing to grant citizenship to as if they were law abiding. But, this will be a hard argument to make, as a second court of appeals has agreed that the Amnesty Order was illegal.
The Washington Times reports
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.
Keep in mind that the president had attempted to speak law into existence. Claiming that the Congress was dragging its feet on the issue, he said that he had to act. This at the time was funny to me, as the new Congress was barely sworn in and his party up until then had been in control. It was not that Congress could not get it done, it was and is a bad idea. Democrats could not pass it with a near super majority.
So, since the President took it upon himself to speak law into existence, Texas and other sued.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.
“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.
It is in the public interest to maintain the injunction because this will set a horrible precedence. Even if you like Obama and everything that he stands for and sets out to do, this will be bad. Imagine a pro-life president coming into office and speaking Planned Parenthood out of existence with a few executive orders. What about an executive order to de-fund Medicare?
But even some in the Appellant Court thought this was no more than a political battle.
Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from Tuesday’s ruling, saying he would have left the fight over immigration policy to the White House and Congress, saying Mr. Obama should have broad discretion to decide who gets deported and how he goes about that.
In one aspect, I agree with Judge Higginson. This should be a political and not a judicial matter. This fight should have occurred on the floor of the Congress. If there were enough political will to pass it, then we would simply have to live with that as it happened. Then if the President did not like the legislation, he could have vetoed the bill. This is how the process is supposed to work. But it did not happen that way, so now it has become a legal battle. That is what happens when people break the law.
If we had not left our standard, this could never have happened. If the Bible were the guide by which we made law, this would have never been a question. It would have guarded us against men overstepping their authority. My book deals with such issues. Get An Everlasting Covenant At Amazon.com