Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
If the email is registered with our site, you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Password reset link sent to:
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service
Forgot password?
Blogs > redmustang91 > Wild Red Mustang thoughts!

Standing  

redmustang91 64M
Ask me for a photo
7761 posts
1/1/2015 6:33 am
Standing

Law is complex. Immigration law is very complex.

Obama's executive orders on immigration are not unconstitutional. The President can set enforcement priorities and make some violations of law less pressing than enforcing other violations. The legal name for that process is prosecutorial discretion. Just like a cop can chose to arrest those speeding at 100 MPH on the freeway, and ignore those driving at 75 MPH.

So the GOP opponents want to go to court to force the Administration to repeal "amnesty". Won't work. Policies are political questions to be decided by electing a new president, in 2016. But before the court even gets to that issue, the gripers will get tossed out. No standing. That means no clear, immediate damage from the policy. Without standing you cannot sue. The court tosses you out. A Federal Judge just did exactly that to the first of these lawsuits against the Obama executive orders on immigration:

A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit brought against Barack Obama by an Arizona police chief who called the U.S. president's sweeping immigration reforms unconstitutional, saying the plaintiff lacked legal standing in the case. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the demand by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a preliminary injunction to halt the policies. Arpaio, who calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff," filed the case last month, saying Obama had overstepped his powers by bypassing Congress and ordering the changes himself. Arpaio's lawsuit said the reforms, which eased the threat of deportation for about 4.7 million undocumented immigrants, amounted to an amnesty and would encourage more people to cross the border illegally. Beryl's 33-page decision said Arpaio did not meet the legal requirements to qualify as a person of standing in bringing the case on constitutional grounds.

If Congress actually wants to change immigration policy, then Congress must pass a law. A law that Obama will not veto... Good luck with that...

Become a member to create a blog