The Obama Administration’s Liberal lackeys at the Ninth Circus of Liberal Appeals (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) ruled that The Supremacy Clause YET AGAIN is KING for our King Obama.
Even though the ruling is about opposition to an Executive Order from our King and not an act of Congress. Even though the opposition is in line with actual Federal Laws.
We are from The Federal Government and We are SUPREME in our power.
Under the state’s policy, you need to be authorized to be present in the U.S. under federal law to get a license. The Arizona Department of Transportation will only accept employment authorization documents as proof of authorized presence if the applicant has or is seeking formal immigration status, or is challenging a change in status pursuant to express provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
That excludes dreamers because they don’t have formal immigration status and are not seeking it under federal law. They’re present subject to the discretion of the executive branch, which has essentially said that it won’t bar them from working or kick them out despite the fact that federal law would otherwise require it.
There were two ways the Ninth Circuit could have overturned Arizona’s policy. One was to say that it violated the 14 th Amendment to the constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws. As the court noted, there is no logical connection between the ability to drive and formal immigration status. And as it further commented, the record suggests a “reason for Arizona’s policy: a dogged animus” against dreamers. The judges said it was pretty sure that this animus, coupled with the lack of a rational justification, sufficed to violate the equal protection clause.
But the court chose not to rely on the constitutional holding, probably because it didn’t want to make it easier for Arizona to seek review from the Supreme Court. Instead it based its decision on more prosaic grounds. It held that Arizona’s policy interfered with the federal government’s power to decide who may or may not remain within the country.
Here’s where things get a little funky, legally speaking. Ordinarily, the doctrine of federal preemption, on which the court relied, is applied when Congress has occupied a whole field of law, to the exclusion of what might otherwise be overlapping state power. The theory is that, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, federal law trumps state law.
What makes preemption complicated in this case is that the dreamer rule wasn’t passed by Congress. It’s an executive order, something that isn’t mentioned in the supremacy clause.
The court tried to get around this problem by saying that, under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, an alien is “deemed to be unlawfully present” if he or she is in the United States beyond “a period of stay authorized by the attorney general.” Under this theory, Congress authorized the executive to decide who counts as lawfully present, so Congress, not the executive branch, preempted state laws to the contrary. The court also cited the Real ID Act, which says that people with “approved deferred action status” should be considered lawfully present. (Chicago Tribune)
So the court was working, not to the Law, but to the IDEOLOGY. Yet again.
On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.
At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.
“The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.
“DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization,” says the Texas brief. “And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”
In the administration’s brief, the solicitor general admits that the president’s DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.
“Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal,” he says. “An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process.”
Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on “deferred action” to legally work in the United States.
“Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here,” says the administration’s brief.
Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that “deferred action” does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.
“In general,” he says, “only ‘qualified’ aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien ‘qualified.’… Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits.”
But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for “earned-benefit programs.”
“A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is ‘lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'” says the solicitor general.
The “secretary” here is the secretary of Homeland Security.
“An alien with deferred action is considered ‘lawfully present’ for these purposes,” says the solicitor general.
So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama’s solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally “deferred action” under the president’s DAPA policy, that alien is not given “lawful immigration status” and can be removed from the country “at any time.” However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be “considered ‘lawfully present'” for purposes of being eligible for “the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs.”
The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: “(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama’s DAPA policy “violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.”
The Obama administration has taken care of just one thing here: It has constructed a convoluted — and unconvincing argument — it hopes will provide the activists on the Supreme Court with a cover story to explain why this president need not faithfully execute the nation’s immigration laws.
Ideology. He wants it. He is the King , after all.