The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Immigrant Children and the Rule of Law
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
Lawyer Denied liar-CLINTON FOIA
For No Interest Says DOJ Now Having 2nd Thoughts
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ Ty Clevenger, an Attorney whose FOIA request for documents on liar-Hillary Clinton was recently turned down by David Hardy, a dirty cop inside the bureau... joins Tucker Carlson to explain just what happened. Hardy ruled liar-Clinton’s privacy rights outweighed any public interest in their release. Clevenger says the FBI is acting like liar-nObama is still in charge, not the first person to make that observation. Clevenger explains that he’s writing a book about corruption in the legal profession and the courts, noting that “most state bars will cover up for politically prominent lawyers. So I thought, ‘Well, this would be the perfect case study, to file a grievance against Mrs. liar-Clinton and her attorneys for destroying email evidence.”... http://rickwells.us/lawyer-denied-clinton-foia-interest-doj-2nd-thoughts/
.
Environmentalists File New Challenges
to Trump’s Border Wall Prototypes
by Susan Crabtree
{freebeacon.com} ~ An environmental group challenging the construction of President Donald Trump’s border wall and prototype projects in San Diego expanded its lawsuit challenging the Homeland Security Department’s authority to waive environmental laws in order to move forward with the project... The new filing in U.S. District Court argues that then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly did not have the constitutional or other legal authority to waive dozens of environmental laws to "rush construction of the border wall and prototypes."... http://freebeacon.com/national-security/environmentalists-file-new-challenges-trumps-border-wall-prototypes/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=2fca701200-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-2fca701200-45611665.
The Bodyguards of Kim Jong-In
by Matthew Continetti
{freebeacon.com} ~ Why did we lose this war?" asked James Burnham of Vietnam in 1972. One reason, he wrote, was that "We failed—that is, our leadership failed—to comprehend this Indochina struggle as one campaign or sub-war in a global conflict... Since we did not set it within its global frame of reference, our leaders could neither develop a comprehensive strategy to win it nor make it comprehensible to the American people." That is a fair description of the geopolitical situation more than four decades later. America faces diplomatic and security crises along the Rimland of the Eurasian supercontinent, from Lebanon and Syria and Yemen and Iran, to a recalcitrant Pakistan, a militarized South China Sea, and nuclear brinkmanship in North Korea. We bomb ISIS, threaten to unwind the Iranian nuclear agreement, demand that Pakistan assist us in our war against the Afghan Taliban, and remind Kim Jong Un that U.S. forces are "locked and loaded" if he crosses an ill-defined red line... http://freebeacon.com/national-security/bodyguards-kim-jong-un/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=2fca701200-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-2fca701200-45611665.
{newsmax.com} ~ President Donald Trump has given military orders for U.S. forces to shoot down and destroy any missile launched from North Korea and moving toward the continental United States, Hawaii, and Guam... Sources close to the president's national security team tell Newsmax the order was given to Pentagon brass in the wake of last month's threat by North Korea to fire a ballistic missile aimed at Guam, a U.S. territory. Last Sunday, North Korea detonated a thermonuclear weapon. The communist regime claims they can fit the new device on advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as ICBMs... http://www.newsmax.com/JohnGizzi/military-defense-missiles-nuclear-weapons/2017/09/07/id/812307/
Trump Orders Military to
Shoot Down North Korean Missiles
.
{greatamericandaily.com} ~ As tensions with North Korea continue to escalate, world leaders continue to search for a solution... North Korea’s latest warning could be the most dire sign that World War 3 is about to break out. Following this shocking turn of events, reports indicated Pyongyang was moving an intercontinental ballistic missile to the coast for another test launch. North Korea’s top diplomat then said the rogue regime was going to press forward with their program and that “more gift packages” would be coming the United States’ way... http://greatamericandaily.com/north-korea-sent-a-frightening-warning-that-will-chill-your-blood/
North Korea Sent A Frightening
Warning That Will Chill Your Blood
.
.
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that in six months, the Department of Justice will begin the long process for deportation proceedings against 800,000 young people who came to America as babies and young children in the care of their parents and others because those entries into this country were and remain unlawful.
When President Barack liar-nObama signed numerous executive orders attempting to set forth the conditions under which illegally immigrated adults whose children were born here could lawfully remain here, he was challenged in federal court and he lost. Sessions believes that the government would lose again if it declined to deport those who came here illegally as babies and young children.
Here is the back story.
Shortly after President liar-n Obama formalized two programs, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (commonly known as DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (commonly, DAPA), in a series of executive orders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that DAPA -- the orders protecting undocumented immigrants who are the parents of children born here -- was unconstitutional.
Before signing his executive orders, liar-nObama tried to persuade Congress to amend federal immigration laws so as to permit those who came here illegally and bore children here and those who came here illegally as infants to remain here with work permits, high school diplomas, Social Security numbers, jobs and other indicia of stability and permanence. After Congress declined to vote on the liar-nObama proposals, he authored his now-famous DACA and DAPA executive orders. He basically decided to do on his own what Congress had declined to do legislatively.
But liar-nObama's executive orders were not novel; they merely formalized what every president since Ronald Reagan -- including President Donald Trump -- has effectively done. Each has declined to deport undocumented immigrants who bore children here or who were brought here as young children. President liar-nObama alone showed the courage to put this in writing, thereby giving immigrants notice of what they need to do to avoid deportation and the government notice of whose deportations should not occur.
Numerous states challenged liar-nObama's DAPA orders in federal court. The states argued that because they are required to provide a social safety net -- hospital emergency rooms, public schools, financial assistance for the poor, etc. -- for everyone within their borders, whether there lawfully or unlawfully, DAPA was increasing their financial burden beyond their ability or will to pay. Stated differently, they argued that the president alone was effectively compelling these states to spend state tax dollars against the will of elected state officials. The states also argued that DAPA was such a substantial deviation from the immigration statutes that Congress had written that it amounted to the president's rewriting the law and thereby usurping the constitutional powers of Congress.
A federal district judge agreed with the states, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed that ruling. That court held that by increasing the financial burden on states against the will of the elected officials of the states, the president had violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution -- which guarantees a representative form of government in the states, not one in which a federal official can tell state officials how to spend state tax dollars.
It also ruled that by enforcing his executive orders instead of the laws as Congress wrote them -- those laws mandate deportation for all who came here illegally, no matter their age or family status -- the president was failing to take care that all federal laws be enforced. That behavior, the court ruled, violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which compels the president to enforce federal laws as they were written, not as he might wish them to be.
The Supreme Court declined to intervene by a 4-4 vote, thereby permitting the 5th Circuit decision to stand undisturbed.
When Sessions announced this week that DACA will not be followed after March 5, 2018, he said he is confident that DACA is unconstitutional for the same reasons that the courts found DAPA to be unconstitutional. Yet there are moral, constitutional, legal and economic arguments on this that will be an obstacle to the cancellation of this long-standing program.
Morally, most of the beneficiaries of DACA are fully Americanized young adults who know no other life but what they have here and have no roots in the countries of their births. Many are serving the U.S. in the military. Constitutionally, DACA has effectively been in place since 1986, and 800,000 people younger than 40 have planned their lives in reliance upon it. Legally, once a benefit has been given by the government and relied upon, the courts are reluctant to rescind it, even though the 5th Circuit showed no such reluctance.
Economically, the summary removal of more than three-quarters of a million people from the workforce would have serious negative consequences for their employers and dependents and for delicate economic forces, and there would be negative economic consequences to the government, as well, as each claimed hardship case -- each person whose deportation is ordered -- is entitled to a hearing at the government's expense.
Now many Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress want to make a close version of liar-nObama's executive orders with respect to immigrant infants (DACA) the law of the land -- something they declined to do when liar-nObama was president. Were this to happen, the tables would be turned on Trump. He would be confronted with the constitutional duty of enforcing a federal law that he has condemned.
Would he live up to his oath of office?
Immigrant Children and the Rule of Law
{townhall.com} ~ Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that in six months, the Department of Justice will begin the long process for deportation proceedings against 800,000 young people who came to America as babies and young children in the care of their parents and others because those entries into this country were and remain unlawful.
When President Barack liar-nObama signed numerous executive orders attempting to set forth the conditions under which illegally immigrated adults whose children were born here could lawfully remain here, he was challenged in federal court and he lost. Sessions believes that the government would lose again if it declined to deport those who came here illegally as babies and young children.
Here is the back story.
Shortly after President liar-n Obama formalized two programs, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (commonly known as DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (commonly, DAPA), in a series of executive orders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that DAPA -- the orders protecting undocumented immigrants who are the parents of children born here -- was unconstitutional.
Before signing his executive orders, liar-nObama tried to persuade Congress to amend federal immigration laws so as to permit those who came here illegally and bore children here and those who came here illegally as infants to remain here with work permits, high school diplomas, Social Security numbers, jobs and other indicia of stability and permanence. After Congress declined to vote on the liar-nObama proposals, he authored his now-famous DACA and DAPA executive orders. He basically decided to do on his own what Congress had declined to do legislatively.
But liar-nObama's executive orders were not novel; they merely formalized what every president since Ronald Reagan -- including President Donald Trump -- has effectively done. Each has declined to deport undocumented immigrants who bore children here or who were brought here as young children. President liar-nObama alone showed the courage to put this in writing, thereby giving immigrants notice of what they need to do to avoid deportation and the government notice of whose deportations should not occur.
Numerous states challenged liar-nObama's DAPA orders in federal court. The states argued that because they are required to provide a social safety net -- hospital emergency rooms, public schools, financial assistance for the poor, etc. -- for everyone within their borders, whether there lawfully or unlawfully, DAPA was increasing their financial burden beyond their ability or will to pay. Stated differently, they argued that the president alone was effectively compelling these states to spend state tax dollars against the will of elected state officials. The states also argued that DAPA was such a substantial deviation from the immigration statutes that Congress had written that it amounted to the president's rewriting the law and thereby usurping the constitutional powers of Congress.
A federal district judge agreed with the states, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed that ruling. That court held that by increasing the financial burden on states against the will of the elected officials of the states, the president had violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution -- which guarantees a representative form of government in the states, not one in which a federal official can tell state officials how to spend state tax dollars.
It also ruled that by enforcing his executive orders instead of the laws as Congress wrote them -- those laws mandate deportation for all who came here illegally, no matter their age or family status -- the president was failing to take care that all federal laws be enforced. That behavior, the court ruled, violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which compels the president to enforce federal laws as they were written, not as he might wish them to be.
The Supreme Court declined to intervene by a 4-4 vote, thereby permitting the 5th Circuit decision to stand undisturbed.
When Sessions announced this week that DACA will not be followed after March 5, 2018, he said he is confident that DACA is unconstitutional for the same reasons that the courts found DAPA to be unconstitutional. Yet there are moral, constitutional, legal and economic arguments on this that will be an obstacle to the cancellation of this long-standing program.
Morally, most of the beneficiaries of DACA are fully Americanized young adults who know no other life but what they have here and have no roots in the countries of their births. Many are serving the U.S. in the military. Constitutionally, DACA has effectively been in place since 1986, and 800,000 people younger than 40 have planned their lives in reliance upon it. Legally, once a benefit has been given by the government and relied upon, the courts are reluctant to rescind it, even though the 5th Circuit showed no such reluctance.
Economically, the summary removal of more than three-quarters of a million people from the workforce would have serious negative consequences for their employers and dependents and for delicate economic forces, and there would be negative economic consequences to the government, as well, as each claimed hardship case -- each person whose deportation is ordered -- is entitled to a hearing at the government's expense.
Now many Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress want to make a close version of liar-nObama's executive orders with respect to immigrant infants (DACA) the law of the land -- something they declined to do when liar-nObama was president. Were this to happen, the tables would be turned on Trump. He would be confronted with the constitutional duty of enforcing a federal law that he has condemned.
Would he live up to his oath of office?
VIDEOS
