1 of 1- Common Sense
- Exchanger
Offline - Registered: 2/16/2015
- Posts: 3,258
The case of United States v. Texas
First issue will be do the states have a right to sue the President. If the answer is no the case is over. If Yes it will proceed to settle the validity of the program. A odd thing the court posed a question for both sides to answer.
"It is whether the policy violates the constitutional clause that requires the president to “take care” that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed."
And this happening during an election year. Let the fireworks begin!
Immigration policy: Review and decision this Term
The Obama administration’s sweeping change of deportation policy for undocumented immigrants will get a thorough review by the Supreme Court, including the question of whether it violates the Constitution, the Court announced Tuesday. The case of United States v. Texas will be set for argument in April, making it almost certain that there will be a final ruling by the end of June — in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which immigration is a major issue.
A rather unusual aspect of the case was that, although the lower courts had not decided a constitutional question the states had raised, the Justices added that question on their own. It is whether the policy violates the constitutional clause that requires the president to “take care” that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” former vice president Biden said during a campaign event in Texas on Monday. "All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”
- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: The case of United States v. Texas
IMHO the State got bad legal advice in trying to tie together the ability to sue the President to the larger issue. Of course this IS TEXAS !
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
- Common Sense
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/16/2015
- Posts: 3,258
Re: The case of United States v. Texas
The legal advice could not be that bad... Two Federal court ruled against the administration. And the program was stopped!
I believe there are 25 States involved.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” former vice president Biden said during a campaign event in Texas on Monday. "All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”
- •
Thread Starter- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: The case of United States v. Texas
Common Sense wrote:
The legal advice could not be that bad... Two Federal court ruled against the administration. And the program was stopped!
I believe there are 25 States involved.
But they have to prove they were substantially damaged to win and to tie that to the bigger question I believe is a huge miscalculation.
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
- Common Sense
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/16/2015
- Posts: 3,258
Re: The case of United States v. Texas
I think they (the states) convinced the Federal court there would be substantial damage if the program continued.
Come about June we will know the outcome.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” former vice president Biden said during a campaign event in Texas on Monday. "All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”
- •
Thread Starter- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: The case of United States v. Texas
My understanding of the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the Constitution requires that it allows only the adjudication of claims where (1) the plaintiff has actually and personally suffered injury or harm "in fact", (2) the injury or harm suffered by the plaintiff is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions and (3) the injury or harm would be capable of redress by the court.
And, based on the above I think that they will fail and have made a big mistake, but as noted we will find out in due time.
Last edited by tennyson (1/19/2016 5:24 pm)
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
- TheLagerLad
- Exchange Beer Snob
Offline
- From: Bucks County, PA
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 2,055
Re: The case of United States v. Texas
I'm glad this is going before the SCOTUS. With the ever increasing expansion of executive power during the Bush and Obama years, I think it's good for the Supreme Court to step in and make a call on whether it's gone too far or not. Not so much for this particular immigration order, but rather for a future President Trump, Cruz, Clinton, or Rubio.
I think you're going to see a lot of different United States of America over the next three, four, or eight years. - President Donald J. Trump
- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: The case of United States v. Texas
I'm glad this is going before the SCOTUS. With the ever increasing expansion of executive power during the Bush and Obama years, I think it's good for the Supreme Court to step in and make a call on whether it's gone too far or not. Not so much for this particular immigration order, but rather for a future President Trump, Cruz, Clinton, or Rubio.
The actual number of executive orders during the Obama administration has not been too much higher than previous Presidents (and a LOT less than some-see below). But I DO AGREE that this whole thing should. have been resolved a long time before this. That said, the Congress itself has abdicated a LOT of their duties including what I believe the most important of deciding to take us into wars. In many ways we have a broken governmental system, but NOT beyond hope of being fixed.
As far as Presidential executive orders, here is a nice recap by President
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"