Federal judge: Amnesty is unconstitutional

[imprimis]

"President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation
of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the
Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional," Judge Schwab wrote.
http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/judge-finds-obama-amnesty-unconstitutional/

 

[racernhra]

Great. Now what? I get so sick and tired of this crap and yet nothing ever happens.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[purkey]

and that means "what" to me? It's becoming a joke and my lack of respect is growing at an unsustainable rate. A bunch of meaningless decisions by meaningless judges.

 

[hollywood]

The judge in that case has no more legal authority to make a binding decision in the case declaring it Unconstitutional than I do.

It was part of the "dicta" ("dicta" = those parts of a decision which may reflect the Judge's or Court's opinion on a matter, but which has no legal effect.)

Per 200+ years of Constitutional law in this country, a court simply has no authority to issue "advisory opinion" and unless the matter was challenged as part of the original complaint or cross-complaint - any decision outside of those lines is not within the jurisdiction of the court.

Despite how Fox news may be reporting this, such a declaration by this judge has zero legal impact as he/court did not even have jurisdiction to make such a decision. The matter before the judge was an issue involving a criminal matter, completely unrelated to the civil proceedings which the Obama order addressed as such the court had "no case or controversy" before it to establish jurisdiction and thus that part of the decision is null and void.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by hollywood:
The judge in that case has no more legal authority to make a binding decision in the case declaring it Unconstitutional than I do.

It was part of the "dicta" ("dicta" = those parts of a decision which may reflect the Judge's or Court's opinion on a matter, but which has no legal effect.)

Per 200+ years of Constitutional law in this country, a court simply has no authority to issue "advisory opinion" and unless the matter was challenged as part of the original complaint or cross-complaint - any decision outside of those lines is not within the jurisdiction of the court.

Despite how Fox news may be reporting this, such a declaration by this judge has zero legal impact as he/court did not even have jurisdiction to make such a decision. The matter before the judge was an issue involving a criminal matter, completely unrelated to the civil proceedings which the Obama order addressed as such the court had "no case or controversy" before it to establish jurisdiction and thus that part of the decision is null and void.

All this jibber jabber aside, do you think what Obama did is unconstitutional?

 

[hollywood]

No, I believe it's part of the plenary powers of the Executive Branch.

Think about this logically: If the President has the full authority to issue pardons to anyone who may have violated US law, in the past or in the future, then doesn't it stand to reason that his office has some ability to do something less than issue a full pardon? There's plenty of Supreme Court cases from a century ago or older where the President is given a wide berth to make unilateral decisions in the determination of giving priority to what laws they may enforce and to what extent they want to enforce those laws.

Like it or not, that's the way it is and has been for a long time.

(You remember that threat by Boehner and the Republicans where they called the press conference to announce they were going to sue Obama over the AHCA? Notice that despite their claims they had hired lawyers and filed suit, they actually have still never filed a complaint with a court? They reason they didn't is almost certainly because they had nothing in terms of precedent that would have lead them to victory and coming out with a loss would have almost certainly cost him his job and looked bad.)

 

[Bitter Creek]

Originally posted by hollywood:
No, I believe it's part of the plenary powers of the Executive Branch.

Think about this logically: If the President has the full authority to issue pardons to anyone who may have violated US law, in the past or in the future, then doesn't it stand to reason that his office has some ability to do something less than issue a full pardon? There's plenty of Supreme Court cases from a century ago or older where the President is given a wide berth to make unilateral decisions in the determination of giving priority to what laws they may enforce and to what extent they want to enforce those laws.

Like it or not, that's the way it is and has been for a long time.

(You remember that threat by Boehner and the Republicans where they called the press conference to announce they were going to sue Obama over the AHCA? Notice that despite their claims they had hired lawyers and filed suit, they actually have still never filed a complaint with a court? They reason they didn't is almost certainly because they had nothing in terms of precedent that would have lead them to victory and coming out with a loss would have almost certainly cost him his job and looked bad.)

How many pardons would a president have to issue before you decided it was an issue?

 

[imprimis]

Looks like the lawsuit was filed on 11/21/14.


http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/HouseLitigation.pdf

 

[hollywood]

Bitter Creek,

From a Constitutional standpoint, the President could presumably pardon everyone currently in Federal Prison, those who previously were convicted and he/she would not have violated the Constitution and could do so lawfully. The Pardon provision contains no restrictions from a legal standpoint other than he cannot pardon an official who was impeached.

From a practical standpoint obviously that would not fly, but legally it can be done.

 

[Bitter Creek]

I knew there wasn't a limit. I was just trying to point out that in this case, we are talking about millions.