November
30, 2014 8:56 pm ‘Studied federal statutes to game
them, sabotage them, abdicate them’
(NY Post) – President Obama likes to claim he’s been forced
into rogue executive actions, laying the blame on an intransigent Congress. In
fact, his lawlessness is coldly calculated, dating back to his days as a
Chicago community organizer.
Consider what he wrote on page 276 of his 1995 memoir,
“Dreams from My Father,” reflecting on his decision to study law: “I had things
to learn in law school, things that would help me bring about real change. I
would learn power’s currency in all its intricacy and detail, knowledge that I
could now bring back to where it was needed…bring it back like Promethean
fire.”
Obama fancies himself a modern-day Prometheus stealing laws
from the oppressive Founding Fathers for the benefit of the oppressed.
“I just took an action to change the law!” he reminded
Hispanic activists in Chicago last week, referring to his executive
amnesty.
Learning to run around American law was his main purpose in
attending Harvard Law School, where he quickly sidled up to Professor Derrick
Bell, who bashed the Constitution as a form of “original sin.”
There was no reverence in studying the founding documents and
the system they created, no desire to work within America’s legal framework and
enforce existing law.
No, Obama didn’t study federal statutes to defend them. He
studied them to game them, sabotage them. To abdicate them.
On Immigration
Exhibit A is his illegal mass amnesty for illegals.
According to a new report by the Congressional Research
Service, the Hill’s nonpartisan think tank, the president’s authority to grant
amnesty is limited to illegal aliens facing emergency situations — such as wars
or earthquakes, floods and droughts — that prevent their safe deportation.
The almost 5 million illegals getting a pass from Obama face
no such hazards.
By giving them work permits, Obama’s also violating the
Immigration and Nationality Act’s intent of protecting domestic labor.
“Congress is unlikely to have defined ‘unauthorized alien’
and prohibited the knowing hiring or employment of such aliens if it
contemplated the executive branch granting work authorization” to millions of
illegals, wrote CRS legislative attorneys Kate M. Manuel and Michael John
Garcia.
What’s more, the Supreme Court in its 1985 “Heckler v.
Cheney” decision struck down presidential policies that abdicate statutory
duties.
“The Heckler Court expressly recognized the possibility of
an executive agency ‘consciously and expressly adopt(ing) a general policy (of
not enforcing the law) that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its
statutory responsibilities,’” they added.
There is little doubt that ordering Homeland Security not to
remove half the illegal population is an “extreme” policy. The president has
“consciously” decided to abdicate the statutory duties Congress assigned him in
the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly mandates illegal aliens
“shall be detained for removal proceedings.”
On School Discipline
But Obama’s not just flouting immigration statutes. He’s
also reinterpreting the nation’s civil-rights laws.
For starters, Obama has directed his education secretary and
attorney general to pressure public school districts to limit the number of
minority students they suspend.
To comply with the policy, Minneapolis Public Schools and
other districts have adopted de facto racial quotas in discipline.
“MPS must aggressively reduce the disproportionality between
black and brown students and their white peers every year for the next four
years,” the Minneapolis school superintendent explains. “This will begin with a
25 percent reduction in disproportionality by the end of this school year;
50 percent by 2016; 75 percent by 2017; and
100 percent by 2018.”
By referring lower and lower shares of black kids for
discipline until they equal white levels, MPS is favoring one race over another
in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
“The new discipline policy is legally and constitutionally
suspect,” US Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow asserted.
A federal appeals court in its 1997 People Who Care v.
Rockford Board of Education decision declared unconstitutional a Rockford,
Ill., policy that forbade school officials referring “a higher percentage of
minority students than of white students for discipline.”
Former Education Department lawyer Hans Bader notes the
court ruling also “explicitly rejected the argument that such a rule is
permissible to prevent ‘disparate impact,’” a dubious civil rights theory not
found in the text of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
“This provision cannot stand,” the Chicago-based 7th Circuit
unanimously ruled. “Racial disciplinary quotas violate equity in its root
sense. They entail either systematically over-punishing the innocent or
under-punishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice.”
“In the event of litigation,” Kirsanow said, “I expect that
the 8th Circuit (which includes Minnesota) will find its sister circuit’s
reasoning persuasive.”
On Housing
Also, Obama is illegally rewriting both the Fair Housing Act
and Equal Credit Opportunity Act in order to pressure lenders and insurers into
setting quotas for minority homebuyers.
Last month, a federal judge stepped in on behalf of
insurers. US District Judge Richard Leon struck down HUD’s 2013 rule using
disparate impact to enforce the FHA against insurers. He said the
administration had a lot of “chutzpah” reading disparate impact into the
statute.
“This is yet another example of an administrative agency
trying desperately to write into law that which Congress never intended to
sanction,” he wrote in his opinion.
Leon ruled the FHA unambiguously prohibits only policies and
practices that intentionally discriminate, not ones based on risk analysis and
other legitimate business needs of the home insurance industry.
For the administration to claim otherwise is “wishful
thinking on steroids,” the judge scolded.
Removing important risk factors from insurance rating plans
just because they may have an adverse effect on favored groups would destroy
accurate risk assessment and unfairly raise premiums for other policyholders,
he said.
But that’s exactly what Obama seeks.
In the name of “racial equity,” he’s trying to eliminate
risk-based pricing not only for home insurance policies but also home loans.
HUD has teamed up with the Justice Department and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to sue mortgage lenders for more than $1
trillion in disparate impact claims, arguing they charged minority borrowers a
“racial surcharge.”
The Court is poised to stop this illegal witch hunt, after
agreeing to hear a case against disparate impact brought by the state of Texas
— Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities
Project, Inc. It’s widely expected to reach the same conclusion as the DC
court.
“Fortunately for us all,” Leon concluded, “the Supreme Court
is now perfectly positioned to finally address this issue in the
not-too-distant future.”
On Hiring
Meanwhile, EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien, a former
NAACP activist, is unlawfully expanding enforcement of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act to pressure employers to hire minorities with criminal records. For
example, she recently sued Freeman Companies and Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
for allegedly running discriminatory background checks on job applicants.
The charges were so egregiously groundless that both judges
hearing the cases scolded her department for ever bringing them, before
summarily tossing them out.
One judge slammed her prosecutors for using “cherry-picked”
data and hiring expert witnesses who engaged in “scientific dishonesty.” In
court documents, he also said they attempted to “pump up” statistics to make it
look like employers were biased.
Both cases charged employers were racist simply for
conducting criminal background checks and credit checks for all their job
applicants, whites and blacks equally.
Even though, as the court pointed out, that’s exactly what
Berrien and every other Cabinet official does before they hire their own
workers for government jobs.
Nine state attorneys general recently complained the
administration was “compel[ling] employers to hire convicted criminals.”
“We are troubled that your agency’s true purpose may not be
the correct enforcement of the law, but rather the illegitimate expansion of
Title VII protection to former criminals,” they wrote in a recent letter to
Berrien. “It is not your agency’s role to expand the protections of Title VII
under the pretext of preventing racial discrimination.
“If Congress wishes to protect former criminals from
employment discrimination, it can amend the law,” they added. “Title VII’s
prohibition on practices that have a disparate impact should not be used as
just another regulatory tool to advance your agency’s policy agenda.”
But Berrien is not backing down. She has reissued her
directive to employers to reconsider minority job applicants “screened out” due
to criminal records.
Over and over, this administration has run roughshod over
the stated will of legislators, even rewriting statutes to suit its radical
agenda.
When Obama swore to faithfully execute the nation’s laws, he
clearly intended to do no such thing.
http://www.teaparty.org/obamas-lawlessness-planned-beginning-70221/
-
See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/obamas-lawlessness-planned-beginning-70221/#sthash.eQWBtd8r.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment