Sheriff Joe Ratchets Up Amnesty Fight With Obama

Sheriff Joe Ratchets Up Amnesty Fight With Obama

Sheriff Joe ratchets up amnesty fight with Obama.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, has submitted a request for permission of a federal court in Washington to provide live testimony at a hearing for his lawsuit against President Obama’s executive immigration actions, which effectively grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

In a motion filed through his attorney, Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, Arpaio argued his testimony is important to the Dec. 22 hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued to halt Obama’s executive actions until the case can be heard.

In a motion filed through his attorney, Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, Arpaio argued his testimony is important to the Dec. 22 hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued to halt Obama’s executive actions until the case can be heard.

Arpraio already had submitted a sworn affidavit regarding the increased costs, drain on resources, higher workload and greater risk he’s facing because of the “unconstitutional executive actions by President Obama.”

The White House had responded with an attack on his testimony, claiming Arpaio offers only “conclusory statements” and “speculative claims,” and “has not alleged any specific injury.”

Klayman wrote that while “these allegations are incorrect and simply strategic, Plaintiff Arpaio’s testimony would be in the interest of due process and to further justice, as well as create a full record for this court to confirm his standing to sue.” Klayman said Arpaio “would also offer further testimony about the harm he and his office have suffered and will continue to suffer as a result of the unconstitutional executive actions at issue.”

“After years of experience with floods of illegal immigrants crossing the border into his jurisdiction as sheriff, Plaintiff Arpaio has many years of empirical, real-world experience and evidence showing how the defendants’ executive actions will directly impact his operations,” he said. Klayman explained that under current law, Arpaio will turn over to the DHS illegal aliens who commit crimes in his county to be deported.
“By contrast, under the defendants’ new executive actions, those persons will not be subject to deportation. Therefore, they will serve out their criminal sentences in Plaintiff Arpaio’s jails, costing his office enormous time and expense,” Klayman argued. Arpaio needs to testify to “aid the court in reaching a fair and just disposition of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction by creating a full record,” the filing said.
“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,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.
The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’s failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”
“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”
Quoting from a previous precedent, the judge said that in the “framework of our Constitution, the president’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”
“The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad,” Schwab said.
The judge said Obama’s contention that Congress had not worked in his time frame was largely irrelevant.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/sheriff-joe-ratchets-up-amnesty-fight-with-obama/#muhOW36tOmoDd08I.99

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *