U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab released his opinion concerning Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, in which he said the usurper-in-chief has, once again, violated his oath of office and the Constitution.
The judge expressed his opinion on the matter in a case involving Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, an illegal alien who has been in the United States illegally for many years, attempting to avoid being deported under Obama’s recent amnesty announcement.
“On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced an Executive Action on immigration, which will affect approximately four million undocumented immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States of America,” wrote Schwab. “This Executive Action raises concerns about the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government. This core constitutional issue necessitates judicial review to ensure that executive power is governed by and answerable to the law such that the sword that executeth the law is in it, and not above it. President Obama contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his Executive Action was necessary because of Congress’s failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard. This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014 Executive Action be lawfully within the President’s executive authority. It is not.”
“This Executive Action ‘cross[es] the line,’ constitutes ‘legislation,’ and effectively changes the United States’ immigration policy. The President may only ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .’; he may not take any Executive Action that creates laws,” Schwab added.
He also took time to distinguish between an Executive Action and Executive Order.
“Authority for Executive Actions and Orders must be based upon: (1) the Constitution; (2) statutes or treaties; or (3) the President’s inherent authority to ensure that the laws are ‘faithfully executed.’ These powers are limited, even during times of national crisis.”
He then provided the House Government Operations Committee’s description of an Executive Order:
“Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President. When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law . . . . In the narrower sense Executive [O]rders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. They usually affect private individuals only indirectly.”
In other words, Executive Orders are merely instructions passed down to those under the Executive’s authority to carry out the execution of law and not that ability to make up law, which is the responsibility of Congress within the limitations of their enumerated powers.
Clearly, many executive orders have followed the latter path and been deemed unconstitutional. Schwab cited two executive orders, one under President Truman and one under Bill Clinton, which were deemed unconstitutional.
Many made a point about Obama’s executive amnesty not being signed or published. Schwab addressed that. He wrote, “Executive Actions do not have a legal definition. Executive Actions have been used by Presidents to call on Congress or his Administration to take action or refrain from taking action (e.g., Executive Actions, issued in January 2014 by President Obama, re. boosting federal background-checks for firearm purchases). Executive Actions are not published in the Federal Register.” (emphasis mine)
Judge Schwab also quoted Obama and indicated that “prior to November 20, 2014, he viewed an Executive Action, similar to the one issued, as beyond his executive authority.”
Schwab declared that Obama’s Executive Action goes beyond discretion. He said, “It is legislation.”
The reason for it going beyond discretion is summed up in two reasons given by Judge Schwab:
- it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and
- it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights.
Schwab concludes, “President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional.”
Of course, the criminal Obama in-Justice Department disagreed with Judge Schwab. In a “how dare you” moment, the DOJ emailed a statement, which read:
“The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order statement. No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department’s filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court. Moreover, the court’s analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong.”
Clearly, the Obama administration is engaged in legislation, which is a violation of law (the Constitution), not enforcing legislation concerning illegal aliens. They are doing so based on their Marxist desires to see America toppled, just like they have in all of their actions, but they pitch it to the American people shrouded in an emotional appeal. Can we expect anything less from a lying, criminal administration? At least there is one federal judge willing to call Obama’s actions what they are: unconstitutional.
Courtesy of Freedom Outpost.