Federal judge: executive amnesty unconstitutional


A federal judge has spoken, and declared President Obama’s executive amnesty unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, in the case United States v. Juarez-Escobar, a federal district court in Pennsylvania[1] ruled that executive amnesty violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. The case in question centered on a Honduran national who entered the United States illegally after already being deported once.

Jaurez-Escobar’s attorney argued in court that, among other things, Hondurans like his client were entitled to deferred deportation because of unrest in his country- especially in light of President Obama’s recent executive orders.

The judge didn’t buy it. Not only did he not buy that argument, he outlined reasons why Obama’s actions constitute legislation, and therefore, are unconstitutional. It was, and will continue to be, a huge blow to the White House’s efforts to legislate amnesty and circumvent Congress.

It will also certainly aid the other federal lawsuit filed by 23 different states to contest the executive orders.

President Obama’s overreach on immigration won’t fool the court system. Whatever rational he attempts to use to justify his unconstitutional overreach won’t pass muster because it won’t be supported with fact. And the fact is, the president did “change the law,” as he himself admitted[2] shortly after issuing the order.

The court system should, and hopefully will, stop the president’s illegal amnesty. And lawmakers in Congress should continue to do their part to regain the authority that is rightfully theirs: the authority to legislate. Only then will this Constitutional crisis be averted for good.