A coalition of 17 states files lawsuit
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas is leading a 17-state coalition in suing over the Obama administration’s recently announced executive actions on immigration.
Many top Republicans have denounced President Barack Obama’s unilateral move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation.
But Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott took it a step further Wednesday, filing a lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Texas. Texas is joined by 16 other, mostly southern and Midwestern states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana. […]
The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will “exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education.” […]
House Majority Leader John Boehner told lawmakers this week that the GOP-led House may vote to undo Obama’s executive action, but the move would be mostly symbolic, as Obama would certainly veto such legislation and the Democratic-led Senate would go for it, either.
Potential 2016 presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who leaves office in January, also spoke out against the executive order earlier Wednesday, saying it could trigger a new flood of people pouring across the Texas-Mexico border. Perry and Abbott also have said the order will promote a culture of lawlessness.
Perry said at a news conference that Obama’s 2012 executive order delaying the deportation of children brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents triggered an unprecedented wave of unaccompanied minors and families, mostly from Central America, crossing into the U.S. this summer.
“In effect, his action placed a neon sign on our border, assuring people that they could ignore the law of the United States,” said Perry, who has deployed up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border.
The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
took it a step further lol
Is there an arrest and deportation step that sovereign states can take? Who wouldn’t like to witness some such endeavor, masonry walls being built, as the truism goes, one brick at a time.
well this is all great but the first thing to point out I think
loudly and persistently
is that even if you agree with the aims of the executive order you can still strongly disagree with the autocratic bullshit piss-ant manner in which food stamp has done this
I haven’t heard a single R make that case
but that’s the message you want to take to the hispanical peoples here
no?
The message you’re referring to being to adhere to proper constitutional construction and duty? If that, then sure, that’s part of any message of lawabidingness due to anyone. But besides the unilateral usurpation of powers stolen from the legislature by the Executive, there is also the abandonment of the meaning of any nation: that the nation is sovereign within its borders. Abandon the borders for “citizenship” of the “world”, and so long legitimacy.
I think you meant to say, ¡HOLA! México there sferr.
I don’t speak the Spanish, so I’m left guessing in my ignorance that means Hello Mexico? Saying hello to Mexico isn’t much beyond recognizing that Mexico, like other nations, exists — and maybe depending how one looks at greetings, some small element of friendly moonshine attached.
It would have been funny to hear one reporter ask why something has to be done now!, right away, tout suite, times wasting, etc.
The message to take to the hispanical peoples what came here according to the rules, is that when you come here according to the rules, you have rights. When you come here violating the rules, not so much.
In many ways the illegals have more rights than legal citizens of any hue. Or, at least, they are not subject to the same laws.
proggtard history refuted
The Truth About States’ Rights
It was federal power, championed by the South, that protected slavery.
That the Confederacy embraced* State’s Rights to prop up the unfortunate slaver industry is a crying shame, but State’s Rights is a much larger and more important concept, and worth defending in it’s own right.
*We’ll never hear the end of it from those Yankee Leftist yardbirds, will we?
Greetings:
But secession is still off the table, right ???
My point was that the border means something to Mexico and Mexicans, and as long as we don’t seem to care, they’ll happily move it for us.
By the way, is New York City burning? Or is that too close to home for media agit-propagandists?
>Or is that too close to home for media agit-propagandists?<
dude backyard no flyover clowns
Thrive
A SPECTER is haunting O!shitamerikkka
Eastern Europe: the specter of what in the patriarchyWestis called “dissent.” This specter has not appeared out of thin air. It is a natural and inevitable consequence of the present historical phase of the system it is haunting. It was born at a time when this system, for a thousand reasons, can no longer base itself on the unadulterated, brutal, and arbitrary application of power, eliminating all expressions of nonconformity. What is more, the system has become so ossified politically that there is practically no way for such nonconformity to be implemented within its official structures.Who are these so-called dissidents? Where does their point of view come from, and what importance does it have? What is the significance of the “independent initiatives” in which “dissidents” collaborate, and what real chances do such initiatives have of success? Is it appropriate to refer to “dissidents” as an opposition? If so, what exactly is such an opposition within the framework of this system? What does it do? What role does it play in society? What are its hopes and on what are they based? Is it within the power of the “dissidents”—as a category of subcitizen outside the power establishment—to have any influence at all on society and the social system? Can they actually change anything?
I think that an examination of these questions—an examination of the potential of the “powerless”—can only begin with an examination of the nature of power in the circumstances in which these powerless people operate.
>OUR SYSTEM is most frequently characterized as a dictatorship or, more precisely, as the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social leveling. I am afraid that the term “dictatorship,” regardless of how intelligible it may otherwise be, tends to obscure rather than clarify the real nature of power in this system. We usually associate the term with the notion of a small group of people who take over the government of a given country by force; their power is wielded openly, using the direct instruments of power at their disposal, and they are easily distinguished socially from the majority over whom they rule. One of the essential aspects of this traditional or classical notion of dictatorship is the assumption that it is temporary, ephemeral, lacking historical roots. Its existence seems to be bound up with the lives of those who established it. It is usually local in extent and significance, and regardless of the ideology it utilizes to grant itself legitimacy, its power derives ultimately from the numbers and the armed might of its soldiers and police. The principal threat to its existence is felt to be the possibility that someone better equipped in this sense might appear and overthrow it.
Even this very superficial overview should make it clear that the system in which we live has very little in common with a classical dictatorship. In the first place, our system is not limited in a local, geographical sense; rather, it holds sway over a huge power bloc controlled by one of the two superpowers<
hi ruining class: mitchy @ harry @ johnny @ nancy
Follow Me
. . . as long as we don’t seem to care, they’ll happily move it for us.
Ah, I gotcha, I think Ernst — it’s “Welcome to America, Mexico!”, with that “welcome” taking a similar double entendre coloration to Henny Youngman’s “take my wife”.
This distressing news has caused me to make a BLT out of season with heirloom tomatoes to compensate for hothouse tomato’s shortcomings.
Tony’s had hickory bacon on sale today for 40% off their regular overprice. At checkout they guy goes, “Bacon and tomato, a match made in heaven, innit.” And I go, “well that’s lunch sorted.”
But I don’t have bread. If you haven’t tried making fast pan-fried bread, I recommend giving it a go. It is incredibly tender right out of the pan. And I wonder, why don’t I do this all the time?
States act while Congress diddles with itself on Obama’s unilateral amnesty orders
There, Darleen, FTFY.
The Republicans have diddled with themselves so much that they have gone blind [and not in the service of their country, ala Washington].
They can no longer see what they are supposed to stand for.
So…they sit on their smug arses in the lounge, waiting to be called to sit at the table of Power And Control. Sadly [for them], they end-up being seated at the Kid’s Table.
In the Restaurant Of Life, the Left sits in the VIP Area drinking single-malts eating Waygu steaks, the GOP at the low table coloring with crayons and eating mac and cheese, and we are expected to serve them all and clean the toilets. I say: let’s spit in their food, to start, and then lock the doors and burn the joint down.
Okay…I’ll stop now.
[…] As Darleen Click reports, seventeen states are taking action on the Federal Courts trying to prevent the implementation of the Administration’s immigration Executive Actions. […]