« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Congressman Schweikert Takes a Stand Against Obama’s Illegal Amnesty

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  June 19th, 2012 at 12:39 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

We often hear pro-abortion activists caution conservative judicial nominees that they must follow the decision of Roe v Wade, irrespective of their personal views on abortion.  Yet we never hear these same activists warn Democrats to follow laws they personally disdain.

Roe v Wade was merely a Supreme Court decision; our immigration laws were duly passed by Congress.  Even those who embrace open borders and illegal chain migration should be concerned with Obama’s use of administrative amnesty.  Obama has decided that he will not follow our immigration laws with regards to people who would be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, a law that never passed Congress.  If a president can disregard a law under the guise of “executive discretion,” what are the limits to presidential power?

Could a Republican president declare that absent congressional action on Social Security reform, he will direct the treasury to stop withholding payroll taxes of those Americans who would qualify for private accounts?  Could a president tell the IRS to stop collecting estate taxes because there are bills in Congress that would repeal it?

One man has stepped forward to put an end to Obama’s kingdom.  Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ) has introduced a bill, H.R. 5957, which would block the Secretary of Homeland Security from deferring deportations or from limiting the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Speaking on the urgency to rein in this rouge president, Schweikert said that he hopes leadership works “to combat this disregard for the Constitution that President Obama has shown.”  “We have seen a pattern with this president; whenever he wants something, he bypasses the legislative process. Whether it’s our bill or another bill that halts this amnesty order, something needs to be done immediately,” said Schweikert.

Please call your representatives and tell them to reassert their control over the lawmaking process and cosponsor H.R. 5957.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • AndrewHyman

    No new law will pass over the President’s veto, and no new law is necessary, since the President is already violating a law that’s on the books.

    Here is the Obama administration’s description of the new program:

    http://www.dhs.gov/files/enforcement/deferred-action-process-for-young-people-who-are-low-enforcement-priorities.shtm

    Here is a lame legal argument in support of this type of new program:

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9078024/Memo_exec_branch_authority.pdf

    The new program defers enforcement of the law for two years, but is renewable indefinitely. This is not applicable to some small class of people who confront temporary problems or obstacles impeding return to the home country. It is a direct challenge to law that is already on the books.

    Whether you like the result of this new policy it not, it’s impossible to square with the President’s duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He is taking care that the law is not executed, and worse is taking care that an extensive and costly program is implemented in its place, and that program is subject to massive abuse.

    • checkmate2012

      Rep. King has the solution to sue Obama over violating his Executive powers. I glad Rep. Schweikert is making at least a symbolic gesture but it won’t stick.

      Also, DHS is allowing an amnesty review for those with final judgements to deport. That should be illegal worthy of a lawsuit as well.

      The House should cut off funding for DHS as this is going to be very expensive if DHS follows what they proposed as rules. They require a background check (so they say) for all 800K. Where will they get the money and staff for all that?

      Lawsuits, not new laws, is the way to go.

      • checkmate2012

        n/t

        • AndrewHyman

          My understanding is that a House vote in favor of a lawsuit is sufficient to confer standing. No Senate vote is needed.

          • checkmate2012

            thus his pre-emtive strike. We agree that a lawsuit is the best option and admit I didn’t read the Bill referenced above. Is a House vote on a lawsuit even needed? Can Rep. King do it on his own?

          • earlgrey

            we hoping that it will be upheld?

          • checkmate2012

            in polls.

          • checkmate2012

            knows it will be struck down. That’s why he announced this fiat ahead of it. If SB 1070 is found Constitutional and AZ refers illegals to ICE for deporation, then ICE won’t act based on the new fiat.

          • earlgrey

            75% is a pretty awesome number. So of course I am frustrated that Obama’s little rule by decree has fooled so many as to have some polls showing public support of what he did. I guess it shows that romney was right to dodge this question.

          • westcoastpatriette

            but SB 1070 is a precedent setting bill and court case as it is the first time that states have decided to take matters into their own hands as a result of watching the feds fumble the ball and essentially do nothing about the flood of illegals all these years.

            Once SB 1070 is upheld, many states will follow suit in implementing similar laws. After the 2010 election, red states were watching Alabama and Arizona and waiting for the green light from the SC to follow suit.

            This, IMO, is why the rhetoric has heated up. Open borders nuts know that most citizens and states are sick of being burdened with illegals and are ready, able and willing to assist the feds in doing something about it. So, this case is hugely important.

          • checkmate2012

            they floundered horribly when even I think Sotomoyer (sp?) said once, that argument is not working, move on! Priceless.

            Do you suspect like I do that O was told the SC decision ahead of time?

          • westcoastpatriette

            since when does the left demonstrate any integrity?

          • checkmate2012

            Kegan was probably given the post by O if she promised to advise of him of the internal goings on. I know I sound crazy on this but I put nothing past this admin…by hook or crook!

  • joecollins

    Our nation would be chaos if every incoming president had the latitude to pick & choose which laws will be enforced during the incumbent’s administration. Or, what if no law exists but the incumbent concludes there “should be one.”

    Abortion? Banking? Voting? Immigration? Taxes? Internet? Firearms? Nationalizing utilities, airlines, banks?

    What if an incumbent were to conclude there is sufficient need for more Supreme Court Justices, and self-appointed executive power to swear in the additional justices without bothering with Senate confirmation?

    Where are we headed with this? Cuba?

    • norris

      the country is certainly headed south.

  • krish

    At least, one person in the Republican party has the guts to take action against the dictatorship! Thank you Erick for bringing this to RS readers & also recognizing him! We need to give him all the support!!

    Compare this to the weak responses of our nominee & republican leadership! Romney missed a great chance to rally the conservatives (based on the callers to talk shows) – what do you expect from the McCain people who are handling Romney’s campaign now?

  • edintexas

    “…to reign in this rouge president,…”. Well, lots of us believe he really is a Red.

    And there is more than one Republican. I don’t recollect the name, but one Representative is preparing a legal challenge in the courts on the basis of usurpation of Congress’ role by the executive.

    • westcoastpatriette

      nontext