November 15, 2014
Analysis: Obama Prepares Most Serious Violation of His Oath of Office
original article written by Net Advisor™
EXCERPT: Our latest analysis of President’s Obama’s de facto amnesty threats to Congress. We discuss key subtopics from when Democrats recently controlled congress to why they lost control of Congress.
Is President Obama representing America’s interest first and upholding his oath of office? Or is the President looking at a major breach of Constitutional law? We further cover who has authority when it comes to immigration, what the President and the Congress can and can’t do in this area, and we provide full references to the applicable laws. Some information we had to dig out from the 1950’s regarding refugee laws and definitions that still apply today.
What can Congress do to stop a lawless president? It is also Congress’ duty to uphold the Constitution. Read more in this fully cited 9-page report.
WASHINGTON DC. Ordinarily, in challenging economic times, a president might focus on jobs, the economy, properly managing terrorism risks, helping veterans get decent healthcare, or perform any of the major issues that the voters have been calling for.
For President Obama along with (illegal) immigration activists such as Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), what’s best for America is clearly not job one. Instead, they have been pushing for an open border policy and amnesty for millions of illegal aliens already in the USA.
[1] Amnesty Warning?
Congressman Gutiérrez warned that ‘Obama’s Executive Amnesty was coming.’ Gutiérrez also said that there would be a “Civil War” among Democrats if Obama didn’t act on immigration (mass amnesty). President Obama threatened that he would bypass Congress and act alone.
The most recent threat came on November 5, 2014 where President Obama said if Congress didn’t send him an immigration reform bill (amnesty) soon, that the President would act alone and bypass Congress’ legislative authority. Obama was NOT elected as a supreme leader or a dictator; and Congress has no legal or Constitutional obligation to be ordered to write laws as in accord of a president’s demand or wishes. That is not how the United States government works.
[2] When Dems Controlled Congress (2009-11)
Obama had the White House and Democrats controlled both House of Congress from January 3, 2009 – January 3, 2011. They spent over $3 Trillion in debt in less than two years and barley passed ACA (Obamacare) within their own party.
Now we know the key architect of Obamacare KNOWINGLY lied and deceived other Democrats, the CBO and the public in order to pass their signature healthcare law. The American public had been against government ran healthcare from the beginning. Democrats lost the 2010 election in part due to Obamacare and the soaring Obama deficit.
Obama and the Democrats had two years where they could have passed anything they wanted without a single Republican vote. This includes ‘immigrations reform,’ gun bans (which the latter would probably be challenged in the Supreme Court, and has). The Obama Administration for whatever reason, choose not to push any immigration reform (amnesty) during their total control of government.
[3] Losing Political Control
In the 2010 Midterm elections, Democrats lost 60 House Seats and thus control over the House of Representatives. This was biggest shift in power since 1928.
Democrats still held the Senate in a split Congress until 2014, when voters decided it was Democrats, not Republicans who were causing the problems in Obama’s government. How do we know this? Democrats lost their Senate majority and lost even more House seats in the 2014 Midterm elections.
Millions of voters had been already ‘angry’ at Obama’s polices says ABC News and CNN polls. In July 2014, Americans were polled who are the best and worst presidents?. The poll found that Obama is the worst U.S. President since World War II.
[4] Working Against America’s Interest?
President Obama spent much time fundraising and playing golf instead of leading. Obama completely ignored a U.S. marine held in a Mexican jail. During the same time Obama sought to free an Army deserter who may have been sympathetic to Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, according to people who knew him (further reading).
Obama also released 1,000’s of suspected or known terrorists or supporters.
Obama released 36,000 illegal alien criminals out on American public streets, instead of deporting them.
President Obama has made it more difficult for people to work. Obama and Dems created a disincentive to work more than 30 hours a week under ACA (Obamacare), forcing companies to pay for expensive healthcare based on new government rules and mandates.
Obama has unilaterally and illegally changed the (ACA – Obamacare) healthcare law at least 27 times making it even harder to figure out what really is the law and how to comply with it. Most people (63%) polled said delays in Obamacare mandates were politically motivated.
Next, President Obama said we should have less government and his policies would not add a dime to the deficit.
“Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need…”
— President Obama said at the 2013 State of the Union Address (SOTU)
We’ll we know that isn’t true. A January 2013 U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report said that the new cost of Obamacare would add another $6.2 Trillion to the U.S. deficit.
[5] Economic Crisis Ignored
Obama’s idea of an economic recovery looks more kike a 3rd world country, rather than a country acting like a world leader.
The U.S. debt is up about $6 Trillion in Obama’s first four years. America’s credit rating was downgraded. In 2012, U.S. growth rate was ranked number eight in the world, three spots behind Mexico. Twenty percent of American households have no job, and many who are working have seen their incomes fall under Obama’s rein. Canada now has a wealthier middle-class than the USA, and China is now the #1 economic power in the world.
The only thing that may be holding up the economy is the gains in the stock market and real estate market which has been artificially stimulated by massive stimulus by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Perhaps Obama knows he will never be able to hold any office again with this record and this is only part of his record.
[6] Desperately Seeking Power?
So perhaps Obama has given up, and is throwing his remaining chips in the wind and looking at a massive de facto amnesty for million of illegal immigrants?
I remember a great behavioral psychology professor I had in college who said to ask this question at times:
“In WHOSE interest is this?”
Bypassing Congress is not in Congress’ interest.
The American voters don’t want mass amnesty; it’s not in their interest.
Existing low wages jobs will be repressed with long-term low wages if 4-5 millions people suddenly get work permits in an already tight job market (Report 1, Report 2). This is not in their interest.
Those millions who are already waiting in line to get in the USA, properly and legally following the procedure would be pushed behind millions of illegals whose first act in America was to violate federal immigration law. This is not in their interest.
So in whose interest is this?
Liberal Democrats seek to gain more future voters [Report, Point 9] to have permanent power in government to control every aspect of our lives (healthcare, doctors, medicine, finances, diet, etc. To control every aspect of a population, starts to question what is the definition of totalitarian rule, and is this where we are heading?
One has to ask, is President Obama doing all this because some claim that Obama despises America, repeatedly violates the Constitution (here and here too), has shown disrespect the American flag, disrespected veterans, and is losing the public trust?
A CNN/ORC poll found in 2013 that 53% of Americans said that President Obama is “untrustworthy.” A 2014 Fox News poll found that 60% Americans believe Obama lies on important matters.
Loyal Democrat, ex-CIA Director and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said Obama has, “lost his way.” If Obama really supports the Constitutional rule of law, and if he really supports America’s interest first, then Obama will not push for any unilateral de facto amnesty plan.
Sometimes desperate people do desperate things, and that can be dangerous. In this case, a massive de facto amnesty would be the most serious breach of Obama’s laundry list of Constitutional violations thus far.
[7] Who Has Legislative Authority?
I am not a lawyer, but the law on this matter seems pretty clear and simple. The United States Constitution states who has the power in government to legislate.
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
— United States Constitution Article I, Section 1. (Source: Cornell University Law School)
Notice the Constitution does NOT say, ‘if a Congress does not act,’ or ‘if Congress does not do what the President asks, orders, commands, threatens, etc., then it’s OK for a President to violate the Constitutional law, and justify to do whatever he wants.’ Such action risk impeachment as discussed in this report. Thus, President Obama has NO LEGAL authority to grant any such de facto mass amnesty period.
[8] Who Has Executive Authority?
President Obama, a former Constitutional lawyer, seems to be under the impression he has the ability to legislate, which is untrue under Article I, Section 1 (above).
Technically speaking there is no explicit law that grants legal authority to a President to pass laws.
“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
—- United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 (Source: Cornell University Law School)
Under United States Code, a President has legal ability with the force of law; but this must be in accordance of the law.
“The term “Executive order” means an order of the President of the United States or the chief executive officer of a State that has the force of law and that is promulgated in accordance with applicable law. “
— 42 USC § 14616 (Source: Cornell University Law School)
I would argue that the force of law means to enforce law, not write laws which would contradict Article I, Section 1.
In practice, a president may issue an executive order, but a president cannot exceed their authority over other law such as the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution under Article VI. A President cannot unilaterally change the Constitution under Article V either (Further reading).
[9] What about immigration? Does Congress have that authority too or does the president have that authority?
The Constitution is very clear on this answer too.
“The Congress shall have power to…establish a uniform rule of naturalization …throughout the United States…”
—- United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (Source: Cornell University Law School)
The uniform rule of naturalization specifically refers to immigration.
“Acts of Congress define the requirements by which immigrants can become citizens. Only the federal government, not the states, can determine who becomes a citizen.”
The U.S. Senate also says under Article I, Section 8 that the commerce clause “covers all movement of people and things across state lines, and every form of communication and transportation.”
This power is under Congress’, not the president’s authority. The transporting of illegal aliens throughout out the U.S. would appear to be illegal according to a Federal Judge in re: United States v. Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez.
After referring to the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Senate, I checked out a third source: A major university law school for the answer on who has immigration authority? The answer was consistent with the other two primary law sources.
“Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States.
It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation’s border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.
Congress has complete authority over immigration.”
— Source: Cornell University Law School (PDF highlighted, red emphases added) (Further reading)
Again, NOWHERE does it say in the Constitution, or the U.S. Senate’s interpretation or by a major law school, that ‘if a congress doesn’t act, a president may supersedes congress’s legislative authority and do whatever a president wants.’ That is not how our laws or government works. That is an authoritarianism, and such power is not permitted under U.S. Constitutional law.
The only area where a President may exercise certain policy in this area is in regard to refugees.
[10] What Constitutes a “Refugee?”
“A refugee is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinions, or membership in a particular group.”
— Source: U.S. Legal.com (PDF)
- Thus, those who made it to the USA illegally and other people in the family did not, does NOT make either person a refugee.
- Because one person was born a U.S. citizen of legal or illegal status parent(s), and other family members are living in another country, does NOT make any of these parties “refugees.”
Most countries in the world signed the July 28, 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR) (PDF, 56pps). The main aspect of CRSR was to provide asylum for people being persecuted by their home government.
So inserting some humor, but theoretically accurate under CRSR, Americans who are being persecuted by their government are free to apply for asylum in almost anywhere in the world, and such other governments are supposed to take you in. This may require a good lawyer in the host country and good cause.
The U.S. Department of State also recognizes the UN definitions for refugees. The U.S. signed only to the January 31, 1967 Protocol. The UN published a Q&A about legitimate refugee status in this 16-page report (PDF).
A June 1997 Report to Congress also gave examples of what are refugees and what countries have major sources of refugees. Note: Mexico, and Latin America were NOT on the list (PDF P10 & 12).
So if the President ignores U.S. Constitutional law and writes legislative (de facto amnesty) anyway, and or claims some “refugee status,” for illegals who do NOT meet the legal definitions (primarily, currently and actively being persecuted by their government) based on the facts hereto, such action would appear to EXCEED the President’s authority, and thus be an illegal action.
[11] POLL: Americans AGAINST Amnesty
In September 2014, 63 percent of Americas polled say they do not support Obama’s threat of unilateral action on immigration reform (amnesty).
[12] CNN Liberal: Amnesty by Executive Order, Bad Idea
CNN’s left-leaning Candy Crowley suggested that especially after the Republicans sweeping Democrats out of the Senate and House, should tell Obama what the public is thinking.
“We don’t know what he’s going to do executive order-wise on immigration, but if he makes a major move along the lines of what we’ve been hearing, which is to give some sort of status to keep millions in this country with some sort of special visa, that would be like just popping a grenade and throwing it in the middle of the Senate floor.”
— Candy Crowley, Chief Political Correspondent for CNN
[13] How to Stop De Facto Amnesty
In January 2015 when the new members of the House and Senate are sworn in and Republicans have control of congress, there are several things they can do to stop Obama’s de facto amnesty.
(1) Congressman John Culberson (R-Tex.) reminded us that the House controls the “purse strings” (money). Any funding that would be necessary to make amnesty happen, such as producing green cards, work visa’s etc, the House can cut 100% funding by striking or just omitting language such that any funding necessary to fulfill processing of such cards, or even paper work, would be eliminated.
(2) Obama could be impeached by the House under Article II, Section 4. The Senate has the power to hold trial for impeachment proceedings. The problem is there needs to be 67 Senators (2/3rds majority) vote for impeachment.
For any Constitutional lawyers reading this, it would be interesting to answer this question. Does Congress have the authority to change the impeachment rules when a material violation of Article II, Section 4 is determined? [Ref: Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) changing cloture rule).] Some may not want to go there, but the question remains, how do you stop a lawless president, especially when his political party are acting as enablers, and failing to uphold their oath of office too? Please comment below if have info on this. Thank you in advance.
Perhaps the easiest strategy is to cut off all funding to the White House for any and all executive orders, including Obama’s political payroll. Yes, if you really want to send a message to stop illegal behavior, you don’t keep paying them. This of course takes big ones if you really want to get their attention. When people in DC are stop being paid, they stop working, and soon no one will be left around in the Administration? This could persuade the President to move toward compliance with Constitutional law.
A congress does not have to appease a president or compromise under threat. A congress has to fulfill their Constitutional duty, and that includes getting a president to comply with their oath of office, or face the Constitutional risk of impeachment.
Sure, during this time, people (including left radicals, left media, open border activities, anarchists, social-communists, and the similar) will whine, scream, call you names, and try to falsely blame Republicans for shutting down the government.
But if Obama blocks or Veto’s legislation passed by BOTH houses of Congress, that is the President’s doing, not Congress doing, and not the Republicans doing. Is the President going to sign laws passed by both houses of Congress for once; or is he going to continue to act like a one-man government?
To put it simply, Congress’ job is to legislate. The President’s job is to enforce Congress’ legislation. The U.S. Constitution has clear laws in regard to separation of powers and for a reason.
Our Forefathers knew from experiencing tyranny first hand from England, that language needed to be in the U.S. Constitution where a President and Congress must agree to upholding the laws of the land, not pick and choose, or make laws on their own [Report, Point 6].
I quoted House Speaker John Boener (R-OH.) who said on November 13, 2014:
Live @SpeakerBoehner: "Our goal here is to stop the President from VIOLATING his own Oath of Office, and violating the #Constitution."
— NetAdvisor.org® (@NetAdvisor) November 13, 2014
Secondary source of quotation.
Thus, if a lawless president exists, Congress must do their duty, uphold the Constitution and stop a president from exceeding his Constitutional authority [Report, Point 6], especially when it is against the will of Americans (see 2014 Midterm election results).
The Constitution also grants the citizens certain provisions if Congress and the President fails to uphold the Constitution, and seriously violates their oath of office. Let’s hope we never go there.
Further Reading:
- Declaration of Independence (07.04.1776) Text
- Links to U.S. Constitution (and free download copies including hi-res) (page bottom)
If you have enjoyed our reports, consider donating any amount to help fray the costs of operations. Please read more in the upper right column. Clicking on sponsored ads helps and one may find other areas of interest. Spread the word. Please share this report on Facebook and Twitter.
Images/ graphics copyright by their respective owner.
Original article content, Copyright © 2014 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
