Deplorables Unite – Do you hear the People sing?

Presidential Power Over Immigration

K (Does the President have authority over immigration?  That question cannot be answered by quoting a particular article, section, and clause.  Only application of proper Constitutional principles will answer that question.

First, we must consider whether immigration is a power even delegated to the federal government.  The answer to that question is yes and no.  The authority to create “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” is vested in the federal government.  However, not everything our federal government currently considers as immigration falls under this delegation.

The power over foreign immigration is delegated through Article 1 section 8 clause 4; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”   Because it is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress.  Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule is rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.  We can see that the executive branch cannot ESTABLISH the Rule of Naturalization, but what authority does the President have over the naturalization process?

Article 2, section 1, clause 8 tells us the Oath each President must take before he enters into office.  This oath lays the foundation for all executive power:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The President’s primary responsibility is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  To fulfill this obligation, the President must exercise the powers delegated to the executive branch, but he also must refuse to exercise any power not delegated.  To exercise power not delegated is destructive to the Constitution and a violation of his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Article 2, section 2, clause 1 lists powers delegated to the executive branch as follows:

  1. Commander in Chief upon declaration of war by Congress;
  2. Opinions in Writing to Congress; and
  3. Reprieves and Pardons except in cases of impeachment.

Article 2, section 2, clauses 2 and 3 continue the list powers delegated to the executive branch:

  1. Treaties with consent of Senate; and
  2. Nominations of certain officers.

Article 2, section 3 concludes the list powers delegated to the executive branch:

  1. State of the Union to Congress;
  2. Under extraordinary circumstances convene Congress;
  3. Receive Ambassadors and other “public Ministers;”
  4. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed;” and
  5. Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Although there is no mention of a power over naturalization delegated to the President, it is under the second to last clause of Article 2, section 3 that the President’s authority over all Laws is established.  The President must “take Care” that these “Laws” be faithfully executed; that would include the uniform Rule of Naturalization established by Congress under Article 1, section 8, clause 4.

It is significant to note that in Article 2, section 3 the word “Laws” is capitalized.  This means this terms is referring to specific laws, not just laws in general.  How do we know which “Laws” the President is required to faithfully execute?  We must cross reference this section with the section of the Constitution that defines which Laws are valid pursuant to the Constitution; Article 6, section 2.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Congress is not authorized to create any law they can imagine nor can they constitutionally establish any law they can get passed by a majority vote and signed by a President.  Congress is limited in their law-making authority to laws that are “made in Pursuance” to the Constitution.  If a power has not been specifically delegated by enumeration to Congress, then the law is unconstitutional.  Alexander Hamilton gives the best explanation of Article 6 section 2 and also offers up a few words of warning:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Fed #78

Hamilton is simply explaining that if any legislative act that uses a power not delegated, that law is invalid; it is no law at all.  However, there are consequences to ignoring this essential doctrine.

“To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Fed #78

To allow Congress the authority to create any law they can conceive or any law they can pass through majority, would be to destroy the limited nature of government and establish an arbitrary power transforming our federal government into masters and the people into subjects.  If a legislative act is not rooted in a delegate power, it is not made in pursuance to the Constitution and is no law at all.  In such a case, an essential check and balance upon legislative authority would be the executive’s refusal to execute such a law.  Remember, the President’s oath is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” not preserve, protect, and defend all legislative acts.  The only obligation the President has to a legislative act is to execute only those laws that are made in Pursuance to the Constitution.

Applying these principles, we can see refugee status is not a power delegated to the federal government.  Refugee status is not uniformed and it is not a pathway to Naturalization, therefore the United States Refugee Act is an unconstitutional legislative act.

Therefore, the power the President has over “immigration” is limited to what is established by the Constitution.  The President cannot establish new rules of Naturalization.  He cannot issue waivers to overturn rules of Naturalization that are established in compliance with the Constitution.   The President must faithfully execute the uniform Rule of Naturalization constitutionally created by Congress.  And, the President must also uphold his oath and exercise his duty of checks and balances by refusing to execute any “immigration” laws not made in Pursuance to the Constitution: e.g. congressionally established Refugee Programs.

Is the legislative act Constitutional? The President must faithfully execute.  Is the legislative act unconstitutional? The President must be a check and balance.



A chance to give all OREGONIANS an equal voice in elections or

Two Wolves and a Sheep deciding what’s for Dinner?

What Do You THINK?

[From Unified Primary’s FAQs]

But won’t this just mean that two candidates from the same party will end up on the General Election ballot?

 This outcome will likely happen only in jurisdictions where one major party has a dominant registration advantage. In those districts today, the election is basically over in the primary, before a significant number of voters have even had a say. In many districts, our current election system effectively shuts out an actual majority of voters. This shutout allows special interests to force extreme agendas through threats of primary election challenges in party strongholds.
In a Unified Primary, all voters have an equal voice over both which candidates advance and in the choice between the top two. This makes the system more democratic and much more resistant to extremist gaming.



United Nations hiring ‘disarmament, demobilization and reintegration’ officers


The United Nations is gearing up for gun confiscation in the event of a societal collapse in numerous countries by hiring “disarmament, demobilization and reintegration” officers who will be trained to seize guns “from the civilian population.”

A posting on the United Nations Career Opportunities page announces a vacancy for the position of “Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer” under the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations based out of New York.

The UN’s page on DDR operations explains what role the DDR officer will be expected to undertake;

Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.

Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and groups, including a phase of “reinsertion” which provides short-term assistance to ex-combatants.

Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income. It is a political, social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level.

The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.

Although the posting prompted feverish speculation that the UN was about to embark on a mass gun confiscation program within the United States, it’s important to note that the DDR program is only currently active in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ivory Coast and Haiti.

However, concerns are understandable given the acceleration in anti-Second Amendment rhetoric and executive action on behalf of the Obama administration since the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

During a town hall event last week, Hillary Clinton asserted that gun control opponents should not be allowed to hold an opinion that “terrorizes” America.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama also cited Australia’s draconian gun confiscation program as an example to be followed by the U.S.

“It’s no secret that the US government has been preparing riot gear, guns, ammunition, anddetention centers for a major calamity that will likely involve violence and widespread civil unrest,”writes Mac Slavo. Should such an event ever take place the first order of business will include a declaration of martial law. And just as we saw during Hurricane Katrina, when the U.S. Constitution has been suspended gun confiscation is soon to follow.”

Since the 1990′s, Alex Jones and Infowars reporters have attended numerous urban warfare training drills inside the United States, many of which included exercises based around disarming American citizens. Foreign troops were also present at many of these drills.

Infowars first became aware of this story a week ago having been contacted by active duty military officials who saw the advertisement before it was posted publicly and we are currently working on a deeper angle that promises to provide further insight.

For anyone who still doubts that domestic gun confiscation would be plausible in the aftermath of a catastrophe, watch the short documentary below which highlights how authorities exploited Hurricane Katrina to seize firearms, including those belonging to residents who weren’t even affected by the disaster.


Perhaps no issue better illustrates the current divide between everyday citizens and our political and business elites than the issue of immigration. The latter group draws the financial gains from a generous labor supply without considering the perspective of those on the other side of the ledger: the working people who have to worry about being laid off and replaced with lower-wage workers, about the strain placed on their local hospitals and neighborhood resources, or about cartel violence spilling across the border into their own communities.

For instance, Sheldon Adelson recently wrote that: “The immigrants here illegally need jobs, want to work and are willing to take on jobs that are not appealing to many Americans.” What about Americans who need jobs? Human beings are not commodities. We need to get our own workers off of unemployment and into good-paying jobs that can support their families. That means if a job is hard or strenuous, employers should raise wages and improve working conditions – why shouldn’t Americans who do tough work get paid more for their efforts?

Rupert Murdoch also recently argued for a dramatic expansion of the controversial H1B guest worker program. Murdoch writes that “there is a shortage of qualified American candidates,” to fill jobs in STEM fields like computer services and engineering. But the evidence shows the opposite: the US graduates approximately twice as many STEM-trained students each year as there are STEM jobs to fill. There is a large surplus of unemployed Americans with STEM degrees and yet, per the Economic Policy Institute, “the annual inflow of guestworkers amount to one-third to one-half of all new IT jobs holders.” As Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman poignantly asked, “Average wages in IT today are the same as they were when Bill Clinton was president well over a decade ago…if there is in fact a shortage, why doesn’t that reflect in the market? Why don’t wages go up?”

The United States has the most generous immigration policy in the world. Each year, the US grants permanent legal admission to an additional 1 million immigrants who will be able to apply for citizenship, along with roughly 700,000 guest workers, 200,000 relatives of guest workers, and 500,000 students. These are overwhelmingly not farm workers as activists falsely suggest, but are instead workers brought in to fill jobs in every sector, occupation and industry throughout the US economy.

Overall, the number of people living in the US who were born in another country has quadrupled since 1970. And yet the Senate immigration bill doubles the rate of future immigration and guest worker admissions.

For too long, the immigration debate has been driven by the needs of politicians, business interests, and immigration activists who fail to appreciate that a nation owes certain obligations to its own citizens.

Consider immigration policy from the viewpoint of a middle-aged unemployed American who has to borrow gas money to drive to a job interview 100 miles away. Imagine how his or her life is affected when the company gives that open job to a temporary guest worker hired from 10,000 miles away. Imagine what any of the 58 million working-age Americans who don’t have jobs might have to say to the lawmakers and activists who claim there is a “labor shortage”.

The phrase “immigration reform” has been thoughtlessly applied to any legislation that combines amnesty with dramatic future increases to our record supply of labor. This is the singular vision championed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. It therefore falls on the shoulders of Republicans to stand alone as the one party representing the interests of everyday working Americans.