Immigrants feel stuck after judge blocks Obama orders

[Ulysses G.]

Why was it constitutional when Reagan And Bush1 did the same thing?

They did NOT do the same thing. They were tweaking existing legislation, which is constitutional. Obama is not. He is claiming "prosecutorial discretion", but granting illegal immigrants work authorization and benefits has never been a matter of prosecutorial discretion, hence the violation of the constitution.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

I feel sorry for these people, but if legalized, they will take jobs that Americans need. Obama should never have tried this unconstitutional parlor trick and, hopefully the ruling in Texas will put a stop to it permanently.

Oh ye of little knowledge in the American judicial system.

I'm sure that you are much more of an expert on the American judicial system than an actual judge.

According to Judge Napolitano, the White House better do a lot more than put their plans on "hold".

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

"The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/17/judge-napolitano-rare-federal-court-ruling-could-delay-obamas-immigration-amnesty-forever

[Scott]

A post has been removed. It is probably best to leave the current political situation out of the discussion in the world news section.

[Publicus]

Why was it constitutional when Reagan And Bush1 did the same thing?

They did NOT do the same thing. They were tweaking existing legislation, which is constitutional. Obama is not. He is claiming "prosecutorial discretion", but granting illegal immigrants work authorization and benefits has never been a matter of prosecutorial discretion, hence the violation of the constitution.

The federal tea party judge in Texas did not rule on the constitutionality of the immigration executive action, nor did he rule on the statutory legality of it because he knows he'd be reversed on appeal.

The activist tea party judge made new law by saying the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 suddenly has a new provision, that policy making is subject to the act. This is a new and radical interpretation of the long standing act.

It will take time for this ruling to make its way to the SCOTUS where one can be reasonably confident this will arrive as shocking news.

[Ulysses G.]

"He ruled that they were changing the law and that they violated federal law in the manner in which they changed federal law. They didn't have a 30-day waiting period, they didn't give Congress the opportunity to weigh in, they didn't let the public weigh in, they didn't publish their rules early enough. They just changed, changed, changed like the president said he would with a phone and a pen," said Napolitano.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/17/judge-napolitano-rare-federal-court-ruling-could-delay-obamas-immigration-amnesty-forever

[Publicus]

"He ruled that they were changing the law and that they violated federal law in the manner in which they changed federal law. They didn't have a 30-day waiting period, they didn't give Congress the opportunity to weigh in, they didn't let the public weigh in, they didn't publish their rules early enough. They just changed, changed, changed like the president said he would with a phone and a pen," said Napolitano.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/17/judge-napolitano-rare-federal-court-ruling-could-delay-obamas-immigration-amnesty-forever

That is new law written by another activist conservative judge, which is the problem.

The tea party federal judge in Texas is an activist conservative judge of which there are many, to include on the likeminded US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over this particular right wing judge.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 deals with rules and regulations to implement public policy, not public policy itself.

The president's executive action deals with immigration policy within the realm of prosecutorial discretion. The law and the rules of prosecutorial discretion are established in the existing body of immigration law as contained in Title 8 of the United States Code of Laws, Immigration and Naturalization.

And the key point in this is that the executive action implements a temporary public policy within existing laws and that the action can be changed, it is not a permanent policy. Permanent policy is established in law, not executive actions.

This activist tea party federal judge is trying to establish new law which is why the SCOTUS will review this action and will review it with a great skepticism to say the least.

[beechguy]

Why was it constitutional when Reagan And Bush1 did the same thing?

They did NOT do the same thing. They were tweaking existing legislation, which is constitutional. Obama is not. He is claiming "prosecutorial discretion", but granting illegal immigrants work authorization and benefits has never been a matter of prosecutorial discretion, hence the violation of the constitution.

The federal tea party judge in Texas did not rule on the constitutionality of the immigration executive action, nor did he rule on the statutory legality of it because he knows he'd be reversed on appeal.

The activist tea party judge made new law by saying the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 suddenly has a new provision, that policy making is subject to the act. This is a new and radical interpretation of the long standing act.

It will take time for this ruling to make its way to the SCOTUS where one can be reasonably confident this will arrive as shocking news.

Yes, I have every confidence in the SCOTUS, after all Justice Ginsburg is at the top of her game.http://nypost.com/2015/02/13/ginsburg-not-100-percent-sober-at-state-of-the-union/

Actually, I don't blame her at all, I would need to knock back, a couple before going to listen to that.

[Publicus]

Why was it constitutional when Reagan And Bush1 did the same thing?

They did NOT do the same thing. They were tweaking existing legislation, which is constitutional. Obama is not. He is claiming "prosecutorial discretion", but granting illegal immigrants work authorization and benefits has never been a matter of prosecutorial discretion, hence the violation of the constitution.

The federal tea party judge in Texas did not rule on the constitutionality of the immigration executive action, nor did he rule on the statutory legality of it because he knows he'd be reversed on appeal.

The activist tea party judge made new law by saying the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 suddenly has a new provision, that policy making is subject to the act. This is a new and radical interpretation of the long standing act.

It will take time for this ruling to make its way to the SCOTUS where one can be reasonably confident this will arrive as shocking news.

Yes, I have every confidence in the SCOTUS, after all Justice Ginsburg is at the top of her game.http://nypost.com/2015/02/13/ginsburg-not-100-percent-sober-at-state-of-the-union/

Actually, I don't blame her at all, I would need to knock back, a couple before going to listen to that.

Tea party right wing judges in Texas are sober in the extreme which is the core of the problem

Who know what that hard core judge is sitting on up there on the bench.

[Ulysses G.]

This activist tea party federal judge is trying to establish new law which is why the SCOTUS will review this action and will review it with a great skepticism to say the least.

It is a lot more likely that the SCOTUS will be concentrating on Obama's fake claims of 'prosecutorial discretion'.

Prosecutorial discretion means you are not required to prosecute every crime which, since doing so would be impossible, is just a nod to reality. It does not mean that those crimes the executive chooses not to enforce are now no longer crimes. Prosecutorial discretion has never meant that the passive act of non-enforcement has the legal effect of repealing criminal laws enacted by Congress. And it has never even been suggested, because to do so would be absurd, that under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, the executive decision not to prosecute certain crimes means the people who commit those crimes should be rewarded for committing them. That, of course, would only encourage others to commit them on a more massive scale.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393094/no-prosecutorial-discretion-does-not-justify-obamas-lawless-amnesty-andrew-c-mccarthy

[chuckd]

Obama has no constitutional right to do what he admits doing in this video. End of story.

[Publicus]

This activist tea party federal judge is trying to establish new law which is why the SCOTUS will review this action and will review it with a great skepticism to say the least.

It is a lot more likely that the SCOTUS will be concentrating on Obama's fake claims of 'prosecutorial discretion'.

Prosecutorial discretion means you are not required to prosecute every crime which, since doing so would be impossible, is just a nod to reality. It does not mean that those crimes the executive chooses not to enforce are now no longer crimes. Prosecutorial discretion has never meant that the passive act of non-enforcement has the legal effect of repealing criminal laws enacted by Congress. And it has never even been suggested, because to do so would be absurd, that under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, the executive decision not to prosecute certain crimes means the people who commit those crimes should be rewarded for committing them. That, of course, would only encourage others to commit them on a more massive scale.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393094/no-prosecutorial-discretion-does-not-justify-obamas-lawless-amnesty-andrew-c-mccarthy

This Republican extreme right stuff is entirely blue smoke mirrors and Giuliani is nothing more than a distorted distraction.

The Congress needs to enact immigration reform laws.

The Democratic majority in the Senate when it existed during the last Congress passed a comprehensive immigration law by a two-thirds popular vote.

Speaker John Boehner, the worst speaker in history, declined to receive it in the House and the bill died in the previous Congress.

The present Republican controlled Senate and the Republican controlled House will not consider the new immigration law that is urgently needed. President Obama has done what Nature does, he has filled the void and the president has done it using his constitutional and legal executive authority.

The Congress is doing an excellent job of demonstrating to Americans how incompetent and venal the Republican party is, which is good news for the good guys in the leadup to the general election next year. Sorry to say, but true, which makes it a good thing for the US in the longer term because the R party is on the direct track and course to political oblivion.

A most welcome course indeed.

[NeverSure]

This Republican extreme right stuff is entirely blue smoke mirrors and Giuliani is nothing more than a distorted distraction.

The Congress needs to enact immigration reform laws.

The Democratic majority in the Senate when it existed during the last Congress passed a comprehensive immigration law by a two-thirds popular vote.

Speaker John Boehner, the worst speaker in history, declined to receive it in the House and the bill died in the previous Congress.

The present Republican controlled Senate and the Republican controlled House will not consider the new immigration law that is urgently needed. President Obama has done what Nature does, he has filled the void and the president has done it using his constitutional and legal executive authority.

The Congress is doing an excellent job of demonstrating to Americans how incompetent and venal the Republican party is, which is good news for the good guys in the leadup to the general election next year. Sorry to say, but true, which makes it a good thing for the US in the longer term because the R party is on the direct track and course to political oblivion.

A most welcome course indeed.

Geez. You didn't use the term "Tea Party" once. How DID you manage to post?

BTW, has it been established that this judge is a member of the Tea Party as you keep claiming?

[Publicus]

Obama has no constitutional right to do what he admits doing in this video. End of story.

The statement has no legal standing or application in or to anything.

Giving any attention to it is meaningless and empty politics completely and entirely.

The states’ lawsuit quotes Mr. Obama as saying many times in recent years that he did not have authority to take actions as broad as those he ultimately took. Mr. Tribe said that argument was not likely to pass muster with appeals court judges.

“All of that is interesting political rhetoric,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, “but it has nothing to do with whether the states have standing and nothing to do with the law.”

There is a long history of http://www.newsweek....n-orders-285931

[Ulysses G.]

BTW, has it been established that this judge is a member of the Tea Party as you keep claiming?

Nope.

[Publicus]

This Republican extreme right stuff is entirely blue smoke mirrors and Giuliani is nothing more than a distorted distraction.

The Congress needs to enact immigration reform laws.

The Democratic majority in the Senate when it existed during the last Congress passed a comprehensive immigration law by a two-thirds popular vote.

Speaker John Boehner, the worst speaker in history, declined to receive it in the House and the bill died in the previous Congress.

The present Republican controlled Senate and the Republican controlled House will not consider the new immigration law that is urgently needed. President Obama has done what Nature does, he has filled the void and the president has done it using his constitutional and legal executive authority.

The Congress is doing an excellent job of demonstrating to Americans how incompetent and venal the Republican party is, which is good news for the good guys in the leadup to the general election next year. Sorry to say, but true, which makes it a good thing for the US in the longer term because the R party is on the direct track and course to political oblivion.

A most welcome course indeed.

Geez. You didn't use the term "Tea Party" once. How DID you manage to post?

BTW, has it been established that this judge is a member of the Tea Party as you keep claiming?

You and others to include myself know the "tea party" is not a formal political party, that it is an attitude and this Texas federal judge has the attitude, 100%.

http://oneoldvet.com/?p=65523

Edited February 21, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

Obama has no constitutional right to do what he admits doing in this video. End of story.

The statement has no legal standing or application in or to anything.

Giving any attention to it is meaningless and empty politics completely and entirely.

The states’ lawsuit quotes Mr. Obama as saying many times in recent years that he did not have authority to take actions as broad as those he ultimately took. Mr. Tribe said that argument was not likely to pass muster with appeals court judges.

“All of that is interesting political rhetoric,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, “but it has nothing to do with whether the states have standing and nothing to do with the law.”

There is a long history of http://www.newsweek....n-orders-285931

Publicus my friend, you are SO missing the point of the lawsuit and the judge's decision in Texas that I wonder what planet you're on.

The cause of action (legal term - google alert for you!) is about a federal mandate that would cause The State of Texas to incur monetary expenses.

It's NOT about immigration per se l!!!!

The State of Texas is contesting the constitutionality of the POTUS making an order which would cost a sovereign state MONEY.

It's about money!!!

[chuckd]

"The statement has no legal standing or application in or to anything.

Giving any attention to it is meaningless and empty politics completely and entirely."

[SpokaneAl]

Why was it constitutional when Reagan And Bush1 did the same thing?

They did not do the same thing - they worked with congress who created the bills, which were then signed by the president and became law.

The issue here is a constitutional one. Congress is tasked with crafting laws. The president can, through executive order, modify laws but cannot create them. The judge ruled that he went beyond that and crafted a new law.

I am fairly certain that this will probably end up before the U.S. Supreme Court for final resolution.

[Publicus]

The statement has no legal standing or application in or to anything.

Giving any attention to it is meaningless and empty politics completely and entirely.

The states’ lawsuit quotes Mr. Obama as saying many times in recent years that he did not have authority to take actions as broad as those he ultimately took. Mr. Tribe said that argument was not likely to pass muster with appeals court judges.

“All of that is interesting political rhetoric,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, “but it has nothing to do with whether the states have standing and nothing to do with the law.”

There is a long history of http://www.newsweek....n-orders-285931

Publicus my friend, you are SO missing the point of the lawsuit and the judge's decision in Texas that I wonder what planet you're on.

The cause of action (legal term - google alert for you!) is about a federal mandate that would cause The State of Texas to incur monetary expenses.

It's NOT about immigration per se l!!!!

The State of Texas is contesting the constitutionality of the POTUS making an order which would cost a sovereign state MONEY.

It's about money!!!

I know the legal terminology "cause of action" as I've known it for decades thx, since my political science major as an undergrad and since First Amendment studies under law professors in grad school. The 123 page memorandum written by the Texas federal judge is "obiter dicta" in legal terminology as will become obvious when this case knocks on the door of the SCOTUS.

The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things.

The tea party federal judge is out of his realm of jurisdiction in this respect and in many respects. Another is that in federal immigration law the states have no recourse, claim, right of complaint in law, no right of appeal or to challenge the federal government. This will become plain and clear once the case crashes into the SCOTUS as in indicated by all and every case precedent in respect of immigration.

ob•i•ter dic•tum

(ˈɒb ɪ tər ˈdɪk təm)

n., pl. obiter dic•ta (ˈdɪk tə)

1. an incidental remark or opinion.

2. a judicial opinion in a matter related but not essential to a case.

[1805–15; < Latin: (a) saying by the way]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

[aTomsLife]

Publicus my friend, you are SO missing the point of the lawsuit and the judge's decision in Texas that I wonder what planet you're on.

The cause of action (legal term - google alert for you!) is about a federal mandate that would cause The State of Texas to incur monetary expenses.

It's NOT about immigration per se l!!!!

The State of Texas is contesting the constitutionality of the POTUS making an order which would cost a sovereign state MONEY.

It's about money!!!

I know the legal terminology "cause of action" as I've known it for decades thx, since my political science major as an undergrad and since First Amendment studies under law professors in grad school. The 123 page memorandum written by the Texas federal judge is "obiter dicta" in legal terminology as will become obvious when this case knocks on the door of the SCOTUS.

The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things.

The tea party federal judge is out of his realm of jurisdiction in this respect and in many respects. Another is that in federal immigration law the states have no recourse, claim, right of complaint in law, no right of appeal or to challenge the federal government. This will become plain and clear once the case crashes into the SCOTUS as in indicated by all and every case precedent in respect of immigration.

ob•i•ter dic•tum

(ˈɒb ɪ tər ˈdɪk təm)

n., pl. obiter dic•ta (ˈdɪk tə)

1. an incidental remark or opinion.

2. a judicial opinion in a matter related but not essential to a case.

[1805–15; < Latin: (a) saying by the way]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

"The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things."

If either Obama's executive order per se, or the process by which he enacted it are judged unconstitutional, then the expenses thereof must also be deemed null and void.

So how is it that the "tea party federal judge" is out of his realm?

[NeverSure]

Geez. You didn't use the term "Tea Party" once. How DID you manage to post?

BTW, has it been established that this judge is a member of the Tea Party as you keep claiming?

You and others to include myself know the "tea party" is not a formal political party, that it is an attitude and this Texas federal judge has the attitude, 100%.

You presume a lot. I know no such thing. The Tea Party isn't an "attitude". It's a belief. Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party, LOL?

HERE is the Tea Party's platform. It want's fewer taxes, less spending, no deficit spending, more freedoms, obedience to the Constitution and so on.

It takes no stand on immigration but of course you wouldn't know that because you too often speak of what you don't know.

Anything you disagree with is "Tea Party". What a broad and educated way to debate a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas.

[Publicus]

Geez. You didn't use the term "Tea Party" once. How DID you manage to post?

BTW, has it been established that this judge is a member of the Tea Party as you keep claiming?

You and others to include myself know the "tea party" is not a formal political party, that it is an attitude and this Texas federal judge has the attitude, 100%.

You presume a lot. I know no such thing. The Tea Party isn't an "attitude". It's a belief. Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party, LOL?

HERE is the Tea Party's platform. It want's fewer taxes, less spending, no deficit spending, more freedoms, obedience to the Constitution and so on.

It takes no stand on immigration but of course you wouldn't know that because you too often speak of what you don't know.

Anything you disagree with is "Tea Party". What a broad and educated way to debate a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas.

I've posted to various threads over time current demographic and socio-political profiles of tea party members thx, which means I've read the materials I've posted.

Your post is about me and not about issues, but then again that's not something your side has to be concerned about izzit.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been removed. I might also add that they did not conform to the formatting of the forum.

[Publicus]

Publicus my friend, you are SO missing the point of the lawsuit and the judge's decision in Texas that I wonder what planet you're on.

The cause of action (legal term - google alert for you!) is about a federal mandate that would cause The State of Texas to incur monetary expenses.

It's NOT about immigration per se l!!!!

The State of Texas is contesting the constitutionality of the POTUS making an order which would cost a sovereign state MONEY.

It's about money!!!

I know the legal terminology "cause of action" as I've known it for decades thx, since my political science major as an undergrad and since First Amendment studies under law professors in grad school. The 123 page memorandum written by the Texas federal judge is "obiter dicta" in legal terminology as will become obvious when this case knocks on the door of the SCOTUS.

The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things.

The tea party federal judge is out of his realm of jurisdiction in this respect and in many respects. Another is that in federal immigration law the states have no recourse, claim, right of complaint in law, no right of appeal or to challenge the federal government. This will become plain and clear once the case crashes into the SCOTUS as in indicated by all and every case precedent in respect of immigration.

ob•i•ter dic•tum

(ˈɒb ɪ tər ˈdɪk təm)

n., pl. obiter dic•ta (ˈdɪk tə)

1. an incidental remark or opinion.

2. a judicial opinion in a matter related but not essential to a case.

[1805–15; < Latin: (a) saying by the way]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

"The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things."

If either Obama's executive order per se, or the process by which he enacted it are judged unconstitutional, then the expenses thereof must also be deemed null and void.

So how is it that the "tea party federal judge" is out of his realm?

The judge said the states have judicial standing on the basis of new costs and expenditures yet there is nothing in the Constitution or in the SCOTUS body of case law to support the judge. The judge in his 123 page memorandum which accompanied his injunction order provided no legal citation to support his opinion because there isn't one, which is why in the end the judge will get reversed.

The states have always had to eat the expenses new and otherwise that they incur in implementing federal laws, rules, regulations, executive policies. This fact of life is as old as the hills and there is nothing new about it.

What is new is the ruling by the federal judge in Texas that the states that brought the cause of action do in fact have a cause of action, i.e., legal standing. The opposite is true and it has always been true. The states have no legal standing whatsoever in matters of immigration law. The federal judge should have dismissed the case for lack of legal standing, same as the Washington DC federal District Court did in a similar case last year (which is on appeal).

Immigration is a federal matter whether it's the federal legislature or the federal executive. The SCOTUS has always been absolutely consistent in the matter.

[Publicus]

Geez. You didn't use the term "Tea Party" once. How DID you manage to post?

BTW, has it been established that this judge is a member of the Tea Party as you keep claiming?

You and others to include myself know the "tea party" is not a formal political party, that it is an attitude and this Texas federal judge has the attitude, 100%.

You presume a lot. I know no such thing. The Tea Party isn't an "attitude". It's a belief. Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party, LOL?

HERE is the Tea Party's platform. It want's fewer taxes, less spending, no deficit spending, more freedoms, obedience to the Constitution and so on.

It takes no stand on immigration but of course you wouldn't know that because you too often speak of what you don't know.

Anything you disagree with is "Tea Party". What a broad and educated way to debate a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas.

The post is more about a poster than it is about the thread or the topic.

[aTomsLife]

Publicus my friend, you are SO missing the point of the lawsuit and the judge's decision in Texas that I wonder what planet you're on.

The cause of action (legal term - google alert for you!) is about a federal mandate that would cause The State of Texas to incur monetary expenses.

It's NOT about immigration per se l!!!!

The State of Texas is contesting the constitutionality of the POTUS making an order which would cost a sovereign state MONEY.

It's about money!!!

I know the legal terminology "cause of action" as I've known it for decades thx, since my political science major as an undergrad and since First Amendment studies under law professors in grad school. The 123 page memorandum written by the Texas federal judge is "obiter dicta" in legal terminology as will become obvious when this case knocks on the door of the SCOTUS.

The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things.

The tea party federal judge is out of his realm of jurisdiction in this respect and in many respects. Another is that in federal immigration law the states have no recourse, claim, right of complaint in law, no right of appeal or to challenge the federal government. This will become plain and clear once the case crashes into the SCOTUS as in indicated by all and every case precedent in respect of immigration.

ob•i•ter dic•tum

(ˈɒb ɪ tər ˈdɪk təm)

n., pl. obiter dic•ta (ˈdɪk tə)

1. an incidental remark or opinion.

2. a judicial opinion in a matter related but not essential to a case.

[1805–15; < Latin: (a) saying by the way]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

"The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things."

If either Obama's executive order per se, or the process by which he enacted it are judged unconstitutional, then the expenses thereof must also be deemed null and void.

So how is it that the "tea party federal judge" is out of his realm?

The judge said the states have judicial standing on the basis of new costs and expenditures yet there is nothing in the Constitution or in the SCOTUS body of case law to support the judge. The judge in his 123 page memorandum which accompanied his injunction order provided no legal citation to support his opinion because there isn't one, which is why in the end the judge will get reversed.

The states have always had to eat the expenses new and otherwise that they incur in implementing federal laws, rules, regulations, executive policies. This fact of life is as old as the hills and there is nothing new about it.

What is new is the ruling by the federal judge in Texas that the states that brought the cause of action do in fact have a cause of action, i.e., legal standing. The opposite is true and it has always been true. The states have no legal standing whatsoever in matters of immigration law. The federal judge should have dismissed the case for lack of legal standing, same as the Washington DC federal District Court did in a similar case last year (which is on appeal).

Immigration is a federal matter whether it's the federal legislature or the federal executive. The SCOTUS has always been absolutely consistent in the matter.

Andrew S. Hanen, the judge in question, must have said a great many things to fill up 123 pages. Certainly enough to allow one dissenting to cherry-pick his arguments, which you appear to be doing.

In all the articles I've read, Hanen is basing legal standing on the following: "Hanen ruled in a lawsuit brought by 26 states that the administration had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which calls for the White House to afford a longer notification and comment period before taking action."

So the crux of the case is not dependent on the money aspect of the issue, like you're asserting, but the Administrative Procedure Act.

I don't dispute your argument that the states are responsible to bear the cost of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive policies. Only that such an argument is moot, given the above-quoted comment: that standing is being based on the procedure by which the order was enacted. Everything concerning the cost aspect of the order must come after that fact, in order to assume its proper context.

[losworld]

Boo hoo they're &lt;deleted&gt; illegal they should be delayed!!! Democrats just trying to buy votes is what is happening.

[SpokaneAl]

Publicus my friend, you are SO missing the point of the lawsuit and the judge's decision in Texas that I wonder what planet you're on.

The cause of action (legal term - google alert for you!) is about a federal mandate that would cause The State of Texas to incur monetary expenses.

It's NOT about immigration per se l!!!!

The State of Texas is contesting the constitutionality of the POTUS making an order which would cost a sovereign state MONEY.

It's about money!!!

I know the legal terminology "cause of action" as I've known it for decades thx, since my political science major as an undergrad and since First Amendment studies under law professors in grad school. The 123 page memorandum written by the Texas federal judge is "obiter dicta" in legal terminology as will become obvious when this case knocks on the door of the SCOTUS.

The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things.

The tea party federal judge is out of his realm of jurisdiction in this respect and in many respects. Another is that in federal immigration law the states have no recourse, claim, right of complaint in law, no right of appeal or to challenge the federal government. This will become plain and clear once the case crashes into the SCOTUS as in indicated by all and every case precedent in respect of immigration.

ob•i•ter dic•tum
(ˈɒb ɪ tər ˈdɪk təm)

n., pl. obiter dic•ta (ˈdɪk tə)

1. an incidental remark or opinion.

2. a judicial opinion in a matter related but not essential to a case.

[1805–15; < Latin: (a) saying by the way]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, [emoji767] 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

"The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things."

If either Obama's executive order per se, or the process by which he enacted it are judged unconstitutional, then the expenses thereof must also be deemed null and void.

So how is it that the "tea party federal judge" is out of his realm?

The judge said the states have judicial standing on the basis of new costs and expenditures yet there is nothing in the Constitution or in the SCOTUS body of case law to support the judge. The judge in his 123 page memorandum which accompanied his injunction order provided no legal citation to support his opinion because there isn't one, which is why in the end the judge will get reversed.

The states have always had to eat the expenses new and otherwise that they incur in implementing federal laws, rules, regulations, executive policies. This fact of life is as old as the hills and there is nothing new about it.

What is new is the ruling by the federal judge in Texas that the states that brought the cause of action do in fact have a cause of action, i.e., legal standing. The opposite is true and it has always been true. The states have no legal standing whatsoever in matters of immigration law. The federal judge should have dismissed the case for lack of legal standing, same as the Washington DC federal District Court did in a similar case last year (which is on appeal).

Immigration is a federal matter whether it's the federal legislature or the federal executive. The SCOTUS has always been absolutely consistent in the matter.

Andrew S. Hanen, the judge in question, must have said a great many things to fill up 123 pages. Certainly enough to allow one dissenting to cherry-pick his arguments, which you appear to be doing.

In all the articles I've read, Hanen is basing legal standing on the following: "Hanen ruled in a lawsuit brought by 26 states that the administration had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which calls for the White House to afford a longer notification and comment period before taking action."

So the crux of the case is not dependent on the money aspect of the issue, like you're asserting, but the Administrative Procedure Act.

I don't dispute your argument that the states are responsible to bear the cost of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive policies. Only that such an argument is moot, given the above-quoted comment: that standing is being based on the procedure by which the order was enacted. Everything concerning the cost aspect of the order must come after that fact, in order to assume its proper context.

You guys are obviously much smarter about the law than me. That said, I am a bit confused. My readings seemed to say that the judge ruled that the president exceeded his authority in usurping the law making authority and responsibility of congress.

Here is a portion -

“The DHS was not given any ‘discretion by law’ to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as ‘legal presence,’ ” Judge Hanen wrote in issuing an injunction. “In fact, the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme.”

[aTomsLife]

You guys are obviously much smarter about the law than me. That said, I am a bit confused. My readings seemed to say that the judge ruled that the president exceeded his authority in usurping the law making authority and responsibility of congress.

Here is a portion -

“The DHS was not given any ‘discretion by law’ to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as ‘legal presence,’ ” Judge Hanen wrote in issuing an injunction. “In fact, the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme.”

Agree with you 100%. From my standpoint, you nailed it.

The other discussion concerning the cost burden seems secondary, if not out of place altogether.

[aTomsLife]

Here, I found a quote that places the cost issue into context, which NeverSure first brought into the discussion:

"Judge Hanen’s opinion was certainly skeptical of the administration’s approach. “The court finds that the government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” he wrote. “Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with this country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states’ resources.”"

See, Publicus, how your earlier comments have absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here?

This is not about Texas incurring the cost of adhering to federal law, but the costs incurred by the state because the feds aren't upholding the law themselves, when they're the ones responsible for enforcing it.