Sheriff Joe takes on Obama on new front

I really hope Sheriff Joe prevails here. Honestly, I don’t think it matters what the courts say… Obama will move ahead regardless. He has no respect for the courts, the law or the Constitution. They are hindrances to him and his agenda. As WND pointed out from the beginning, this wasn’t an executive order – it was a memorandum. So, enforcing it at all is technically illegal and unconstitutional. Obama has soooo many corrupt attorneys and judges in his sway, he can counter just about any move at any level now. He should be roundly impeached – he should be forcibly removed from office. But short of a military coup, I don’t see it happening.

From WND:

A legal brief filed in a federal court in Texas warns that if the judge decides to reverse himself and allow President Obama’s amnesty program to move forward right away, it could cost U.S. taxpayers $144 billion.

The friend-of-the-court brief contends Obama’s executive immigration actions delaying deportation and offering benefits to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens could forever change the legitimacy of elections in America because of the possibility the illegal aliens could be allowed to vote.

The filing from attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch was on behalf of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has a separate lawsuit against the government over amnesty.

His claims were rejected by a district judge but now are on a fast track at the appeals court in Washington.

WND broke the story last week when U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the government from enforcing Obama’s amnesty orders.

Hanen also confirmed WND’s exclusive report that, contrary to popular perception, the order to delay deportation was not an executive order by the president. Instead, it was a memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson at Obama’s direction.

The federal government also on Monday asked the judge to halt his order.

The Justice Department said it wants Hanen to let the amnesty program move forward now as Obama has planned, even while its constitutionality is being determined.

The judge, in his original ruling, said the 26 states who brought the Texas case, would suffer “irreparable harm” under the program, setting a high bar for Obama to obtain a delay.

Not only was Arpaio a key amicus party to the Texas case, Klayman’s arguments were the first to approach the judge in support of his original order.

He pointed out in Monday’s filing, which happened as the White House requested a stay, that the states already had reached their own high standard.

“To support injunctive relief, plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer ‘irreparable injury’ if preliminary relief is not grant; (3) that an order would not substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by granting the order.”

The judge’s original order agreed, so now there is no rush, the newest brief suggests, to change federal immigration law because of Obama’s plan.


WND also reported earlier when yet another federal judge, in Pennsylvania, declared the amnesty unconstitutional.

“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,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

The judge noted 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’ 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,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”

Quoting from a previous precedent, the judge said that in the “framework of our Constitution, the president’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”

“The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad,” Schwab said.

The judge said Obama’s contention that Congress had not worked in his time frame was largely irrelevant.

Obama has absolutely violated the separation of powers and he knows it. He’s no dummy… it’s part of a well-crafted strategy that he is shoving down our throats. The end goal is changing the voting demographic here in the United States for the next 30 years – in other words, permanently. And our spineless leaders are just letting this happen. It is a coup from within, with no war… no blood… but a coup nevertheless. Obama is a president; not a king or a lawmaker. Congress has nothing to do with what Obama is putting forth. His ‘change’ is destroying the Republic and it is picking up speed. If not turned back with efforts such as Klayman’s and Arpaio’s, it will be too late. We will have one Marxist party rule.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton is an editor and writer for Right Wing News. She owns and blogs at She is a Constitutional Conservative and NoisyRoom focuses on political and national issues of interest to the American public. Terresa is the editor at Trevor Loudon's site, New Zeal - She also does research at You can email Terresa here. NoisyRoom can be found on Facebook and on Twitter.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!