Less than two hours after Barack Obama announced a solo move to protect millions of illegal aliens from deportation, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio took him to court to have the Constitution upheld.
A lawsuit filed by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch named Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Immigration Services chief Leon Rodriquez and Attorney General Eric Holder as defendants in an action that seeks to avoid “irreversible harm” from Obama’s actions because they will “encourage[e] more illegal aliens to enter the country unlawfully…”
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks, among other things, a “permanent injunction declaring the amnesty programs to be unlawful.”
Arpaio, who has been at odds with the Obama administration a number of times, released a statement:
“This unconstitutional act by the president will have a serious detrimental impact on my carrying out the duties and responsibilities for which I am encharged as sheriff,” he said “Specifically, it will severely strain our resources, both in manpower and financially, necessary to protect the citizens I was elected to serve. For instance, among the many negative [e]ffects of this executive order, will be the increased release of criminal aliens back onto streets of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the rest of the nation.”
He continued, “I am not seeking to myself enforce the immigration laws as this is the province of the federal government. Rather, I am seeking to have the president and the other defendants obey the U.S. Constitution, which prevents this executive order from having been issued in the first place. This unconstitutional act must be enjoined by a court of law on behalf of not just myself, but all of the American people.”
Klayman, a former federal prosecutor and founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, recently obtained a preliminary injunction against the National Security Agency for having unconstitutionally accessed the telephonic metadata of nearly all Americans. That case is pending at the appellate level now.
Arpaio has been targeted by the Obama administration for alleged civil rights violations, but he also has turned over to his Cold Case Posse the question of whether Obama’s documentation proves a status as a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution, for him to be president.
The Posse’s conclusions so far have been that there was a forgery committed in the creation of the birth documentation Obama has presented as genuine, and fraud in the presentation of that as a real document.
However, no one has been named as an offender and no charges have been filed.
The civil action explains that Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” from 2012 and the new Nov. 20, 2014, executive order amnesty programs are abuses of the president’s role “in our nation’s constitutional architecture.”
The moves “exceed the powers of the president within the U.S. Constitution,” it explains.
“While defendant Obama hijacks the language of previous immigration regulation and law, defendant Obama fundamentally transforms the definition of key terms to create a radically new and different regime of immigration law and regulation,” the complaints states.
“DACA and EOA are sweeping changes to immigration law and regulation, operate on a ‘wholesale’ level upon broad categories rather than ‘retail’ as an individualized adjudication of persons one at a time, operate in and modify areas already regulated differently by existing regulations, and are a dramatic departure from prior interpretation and application of existing law and regulations.
“Yet the Obama administration purports to effect the dramatic changes by executive order announced by the president, implemented through his cabinet secretaries,” it explains.
The case points out that the even if a court would find DACA and EOA legitimate, they still would need to go first through the “rigid rule-making procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act.”
“The president cannot simply announce sweeping new rules and implement them by giving a speech,” it said.
The case alleges Obama “is seeking to legislate in place of Congress,” and already has admitted his acts are illegal.
The case quotes from Obama’s own speech in 2013, when he said, “The problem is that, you know, I am the president of the United States. I am not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.”
Arpaio specifically would be damaged because Obama’s actions would leave to him the management of the “increases in the influx of illegal aliens motivated by defendant Obama’s policies…”
“Plaintiff Arpaio has turned illegal aliens who have committed crimes over to ICE, totaling 4,000 criminals in his jails for state crimes in just an eight-month period.
“However, over 36 percent keep coming back,” the complaint says.