Home > Immigration > Half U.S. Supreme Court Just IGNORED The Constitution

Half U.S. Supreme Court Just IGNORED The Constitution

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Half U.S. Supreme Court Just IGNORED The Constitution

original article written by Net Advisor

WASHINGTON, DC. On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) made an indecisive 4-4 ruling on whether a U.S. President – in this case Barack Obama could stop the deportation of some 4 million people residing in the USA illegally.

The split vote upheld the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Eastern District of Texas who Ruled in 2015, that Obama’s defacto amnesty and providing illegal alien work permits, exceeded his presidential authority, and thus such Executive Action was and is illegal.

The Supreme Court made no comment and wrote no dissent.

  • Education Note: Many people, mostly in the media and in politics incorrectly refer to illegal aliens as “Undocumented Immigrants.” However, undocumented immigrant does not appear anywhere in the federal statute, see 8 USC §1325.

[1] Misreading the Court and the Law.

After reviewing many print and TV media stories regarding this case, I have noticed many seem have incorrectly read this case as ‘whether illegal aliens should be permitted to stay in the USA’ despite federal law says otherwise.

The legal question here was really not a difficult one to decipher. All one had to do is look at what the U.S. Constitution says about who has legal authority over immigration.

President Obama, a former Constitutional lawyer, seems to be under the impression he has the ability to legislate, which is untrue.

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

— United States Constitution, Article I, Section 1 (Source: Cornell University Law School)

In practice, a president may issue an executive order, but a president cannot exceed their authority over other law.

Under United States Code (USC), a President has the legal ability with the force of law; but this must be in accordance of the law.

“The term ‘Executive order’ means an order of the President of the United States or the chief executive officer of a State that has the force of law and that is promulgated in accordance with applicable law.”

— 42 USC §14616 (Source: Cornell University Law School)

Arguably, the force of law means to enforce law, not write laws which would contradict Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

A President (The Executive Branch) is not a dictatorship, and a President cannot and does not have the power to supersede the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution (Article VI). Nor can a president unilaterally change the Constitution under Article V (Further reading).


So who has legal authority over immigration?

[2] Congress Has Authority Over Immigration.

The Constitution addresses this question very specifically and clearly:

“The Congress shall have power to…establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States…”

— United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (Source: Cornell University Law School)

The uniform rule of naturalization specifically refers to immigration.

“Acts of Congress define the requirements by which immigrants can become citizens. Only the federal government, not the states, can determine who becomes a citizen.”

— Source: The United States Senate (PDF highlighted)

The U.S. Senate also says under Article I, Section 8 that the commerce clause “covers all movement of people and things across state lines, and every form of communication and transportation.”

This power is under Congress’, not the president’s authority. The transporting (trafficking) of illegal aliens throughout the U.S. is illegal according to Federal Judge in re: United States v. Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez (2013).

After referring to the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Senate, I checked out a third source: A major university law school for the answer on who has immigration authority? The answer was consistent with the other two primary law sources.

“Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States.

It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation’s border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.

Congress has complete authority over immigration.”

— Source: Cornell University Law School (PDF highlighted)(red emphases added)(Further reading)

Again, NOWHERE does it say in the Constitution, or the U.S. Senate’s interpretation or by a major law school, that ‘if a congress doesn’t act, a president may supersede Congress’ legislative authority and do whatever a president wants.’

Congress has NO legal obligation to write or pass any law because some politician or a president says we need “reform.” That is not how our laws or government works. That is an authoritarianism, and such power is not permitted under U.S. Constitutional law.

[3] Four Justices: What Congress? What Constitution?

Whether one is for or against effectively legalizing illegal aliens is irrelevant to what four Supreme Court Justices did.

If the Supreme Court Justices followed U.S. Constitutional law, their decision in this case should have been a decisive 8-0 ruling.

Instead, what these four (politically Left-oriented) justices seemed to interpret is that Congress is irrelevant, and U.S. Constitution is also irrelevant. These four justice votes are in direct conflict with U.S. Constitutional law (Article I, Section 1; Article I, Section 8; Articles V and VI, and violates 42 USC §14616) as stated above.

[4] Impact and Analysis.

Just one more SCOTUS vote on this issue could have created new legal precedent that says it’s OK for a U.S. President to just bypass Congress, bypass the U.S. Constitution, and make laws in the Executive Branch as a President sees fit?

That my friends is not a Democracy, let alone a Constitutional Republic – that is called a Monarchy or a Dictatorship.

Such action would be far from what our laws clearly state. When members of the U.S. Supreme Court think the Constitution or Congress’ authority doesn’t matter, we’ve got a serious problem.

The next U.S. president is expected to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court. This move will tip the court back to where it has been, or move the High Court to a stance that challenges or effectively removes the checks and balance between Congress, The Executive and Judicial Branches (Graphic above). This action challenges the 240 year framework of our Constitutional government; which is why this November election is probably the most important election in modern history.


  • Official Sheriff’s Report in Justice Scalia’s Death in Presido County, Texas, DTD 2016-02-13, Case #16-066 PDF File.

SCOTUS photo: Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Public Domain), courtesy, Wikipedia. Three Branches of government graphic courtesy USA.gov. Original content copyright © 2016 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.

Related posts:

Categories: Immigration
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.