On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case, United States v. Texas. In an op-ed appearing on the Daily Caller site, I discuss why this case is not just the most important immigration case the Court will decide this session, but the most important consttutional issue it will consider.
Dan is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)'s President after joining the organization in 1982. He has testified more than 50 times before Congress, and been cited in the media as "America's best-known immigration reformer." Dan has appeared on virtually every significant TV and radio news/talk program in America and, in addition to being a contributing editor to ImmigrationReform.com, has contributed commentaries to a vast number of print media outlets.
2 Comments
America Must Toe the NWO Line
No matter what it costs.
“When the Republican-led Congress made it clear that they lacked the political courage to defend either their plenary constitutional power to make immigration laws,” you have to wonder if they actually wanted to stop Obama’s executive amnesty. I fear the court might wonder the same thing. Yes the House of Representatives finally submitted an amicus brief opposing the executive actions, which points out the obvious enumerated powers over immigration they have, and Congress’s lawyer will also have time to argue. But is that enough to make it a clear separation of powers case or would their previous failures to act in a concrete way against the President’s actions suggest this might be a kind of Kabuki politics? The Congress ought to be the party challenging the President’s actions. As I said repeatedly following Obama executive actions, they needed to act to convey clarity that they were opposed and that only they could make such sweeping changes. But they didn’t.
So now article after article suggests that the states could just lose, and the Obama administration win, on the standing issue. If there’s no complainant with standing, there’s no case. My hope is that, if the court decides against the state’s standing, that it calls upon Congress to tell the court if it wants to declare itself as the party of standing against the President’s actions, and schedule a rehearing pending that action. Then the Republican majority couldn’t play any games. They would have to choose.