Obama Pushes Constitution to the Brink of Extinction

The Obama administration will have yet another case heard in front of the Supreme Court. The Obama administration appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) as recess appointments last year. A federal appeals court ruled Obama exceeded his constitutional power by making these appointments. Let’s be clear, all presidents make recess appointments. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint federal positions if Congress is in recess. However, Obama used a gimmick by having Majority Leader Harry Reid end a Senate session even though members were reconvening in a few days. If Obama wins his Supreme Court appeal, it says the President can assign anyone to any post if Congress is merely out to lunch. To make matters worse, Obama never nominated or told Congress who he planned to assign to the NRLB posts. If the Supreme Court puts an end to the Obama madness, then nearly 300 decisions made by the NLRB will be voided. However, thus far, the Obama camp has pretty much gotten their way with the Supreme Court.

In the Arizona Immigration law, the Supreme Court upheld the most controversial provision of the law which allows law enforcement to check the immigration status of any individual they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect the individual may be in the United States illegally. The court struck down all other provisions of the law citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986 which the Supreme Court said could not be preempted by State laws. For instance, the Arizona law wanted to make it a misdemeanor for illegal aliens to apply for work in Arizona, but the 1986 Federal law states it is illegal for employers to hire illegal workers, but the law makes a deliberate choice not to impose any criminal penalties against illegal employees. Also, the Supreme Court also said “It is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States”. This means Arizona authorities cannot hold and or deport an illegal alien assigned for deportation since the Federal law of 1986 sets procedures and guidelines for illegal alien removal. The court sympathized with Arizona citing property damage, environmental degradation, and crime associated with illegal aliens, but their hands were tied by the 1986 law. This is true even though the Court felt the federal government was being negligent with its enforcement of the law.

Since the passing of the Federal Immigration Law in 1986 over 10 million illegal aliens have come to the U.S. from Mexico (an estimated 3.5 million via Arizona). In other words, the federal law has done nothing to diminish illegal immigration and secure our borders. And the one glaring issue with a federal immigration law is it assumes each state is affected equally by illegal immigration. This is not the case; border-states suffer much higher crime and costs associated with enforcement. Yet, the federal government and the Supreme Court fail to see illegal immigration as a state issue. And when the federal government law is failing to protect the citizens of Arizona, local law enforcement and officials are powerless to act. Yet, instead of trying to work with Arizona to help them with their immigration issues, the administration decided to sue them. Remember, Arizona merely created the law because the administration refused to help them with their immigration problem in the first place.

In the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, the court upheld the law citing the Federal government has the right to tax citizens. The Court ruled that the government can mandate people must buy health insurance or face a fine (tax). If this is true, then what is stopping the federal government from mandating that each home have a garden and at least 3 trees on the front lawn or face a fine? Nothing! This is outrageous and basically makes the Constitution moot and it certainly makes the Commerce Clause irrelevant because the Court has given the federal government the right to create interstate commerce through taxation. the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.

So there you have it! If the Supreme Court says Obama’s recess appointments are Constitutional then any president can assign a person to a post during a lunch recess without being formally nominated. Remember, the purpose of the recess clause in the constitution was due to the fact Congress was only in session a few months each year 200 years ago. Obama has already won landmark Supreme Court decisions on immigration and healthcare that yields a great deal of power to the federal government and makes states powerless