Several years ago, over 200 citizens of Maricopa County, Arizona petitioned County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, to investigate Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for and hold the office of president. The task was given to the sheriff’s Cold Case Posse who after months of investigation found overwhelming evidence that indicated Obama’s birth certificate presented by the White House was a forgery and constituted fraud.
Not long after Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo, lead investigator for the Cold Case Posse, made their first announcement about their findings Obama launched a barrage of attacks against Sheriff Joe and the sheriff’s department. For the past three years Obama and his Justice Department puppets have been attacking Arpaio in an effort to destroy his career and run him out of law enforcement.
Now Sheriff Joe is mounting his own attack against Barack Obama that could result in destroying Obama’s illegal immigration actions. With the help of attorney Larry Klayman, Arpaio has filed a lawsuit against Obama claiming that his executive actions on immigration are a direct violation of the US Constitution. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his lawsuit stating that Arpaio had no issue of standing to bring the lawsuit against the executive leader.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the DC court did express alarm over the situation and called for changes. She wrote:
“Today we hold that the elected sheriff of the nation’s fourth largest county, located mere miles from our border with Mexico, cannot challenge the federal government’s deliberate non-enforcement of the immigration laws.”
“I write separately to … note the consequences of our modern obsession with a myopic and constrained notion of standing.”
“[While the government may call it] prosecutorial discretion, [Arpaio, views it] as a violation of the president’s duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ … and the non-delegation doctrine.”
“By prohibiting abstract, general claims, the doctrine aims to ensure that the president’s ‘most important constitutional duty, to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed is not transferred to the courts. But what if the chief executive decides not to faithfully execute the laws?”
“In that case our doctrine falls silent. Paying a nominal filing fee guarantees access to the federal courts, but challenge the executive’s decision to undermine the rule of law and you will likely find your fee wasted.”
Just when the Obama administration began to breathe a sigh of relief, Klayman announced that he is preparing to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court. In the appeal, they claim that Arpaio does have legal standing to bring the lawsuit against Obama since his sheriff’s department has had to endure $9 million of extra expenses in housing illegal aliens that should be deported according to the federal immigration laws passed by Congress.
Part of the petition being prepared by Klayman is asking the Supreme Court if Obama’s executive orders and memos that have arbitrarily changed immigration laws ‘are an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority vested in the Congress and an attempt by the executive branch to repeal legislation enacted by Congress.’
“The executive branch respondents seek to nullify and/or repeal statutes enacted by Congress – sections of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (as amended) … by executive memoranda issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security on orders of President Obama.”
“The gravamen of these programs is to cancel through unilateral executive memoranda statutes passed by the legislative branch.”
“The writ of certiorari needs to be issued, the law clarified, and the D.C. Circuit reversed.”
Klayman explained the importance of their legal challenge to WND, saying:
“In essence, we are asking the high court to resolve conflicting approaches among the nation’s appellate court circuits. We are reminding the justices that America’s system of law and order and our nation’s experiment in self-government (unique in human history) cannot long survive if the judiciary refuses to play its part by upholding the Constitution.”
“The Constitution can only have meaning if we are disciplined to live by it, even when politicians are tempted to cheat. If neither the courts nor elected politicians will protect and defend – and follow – the Constitution, they leave every door closed for a peaceable resolution of our citizens’ refusal to stand by and watch our country slowly die.”
“This case is of huge importance to the rule of law. In the age of King George III, he ruled by fiat, causing a revolution and the founding of a new, free nation. Almost 230 years later, another would-be king has usurped the power of the people, and this must not be allowed to stand. Sheriff Arpaio and I, and all law abiding Americans, look to the U.S. Supreme Court to reestablish the constitutional republic, not just with regard to the enforcement of immigration laws but also to set an example that the president of the United States, be he or she Democrat or Republican, is not above the law”
Klayman also said that during the preparation of their appeal that he obtained leaked information from the DHS indicating ‘outlined plans for new executive-action usurpations of the role of Congress – which bypasses even the federal court in Texas that ordered Obama and his minions at DHS to cease and desist from implementing his illegal executive amnesty.’
We will have to wait and see if the Supreme Court decides to hear Arpaio’s case against Barack Obama or not. The very future of America rests upon what the Supreme Court does. Will they decide to uphold the US Constitution or allow Obama and lower courts to eviscerate it and plunge our nation into complete ruin?