Obama to Tell SCOTUS That He has the Power to Make Illegals Eligible for “Earned-Benefit” Programs, Like Social Security

th (8)Did you know that there is a case in front of the United States States Supreme Court, in which President Barack Hussein Obama is arguing that he has the Constitutional Power to tell millions of illegal aliens, who are violating the laws of our Sovereign Nation, that he will not enforce that law against them now, in order for them to continue to violate that law in the future and that he will enable them to be eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible, because they are, in fact, breaking our laws?

Well, through his mouthpiece, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, that is exactly what Obama is  telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.

Terrence P. Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews.com, reports that

…The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing “prosecutorial discretion.”

He argues that under this particular type of “prosecutorial discretion,” the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally, eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.

At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.

“The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.

“DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization,” says the Texas brief. “And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”

In the administration’s brief, the solicitor general admits that the president’s DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.

“Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal,” he says. “An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process.”

Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on “deferred action” to legally work in the United States.

“Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here,” says the administration’s brief.

Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that “deferred action” does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.

“In general,” he says, “only ‘qualified’ aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien ‘qualified.’… Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits.”

But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for “earned-benefit programs.”

“A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is ‘lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'” says the solicitor general.

The “secretary” here is the secretary of Homeland Security.

“An alien with deferred action is considered ‘lawfully present’ for these purposes,” says the solicitor general.

So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama’s solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally “deferred action” under the president’s DAPA policy, that alien is not given “lawful immigration status” and can be removed from the country “at any time.” However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be “considered ‘lawfully present'” for purposes of being eligible for “the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs.”

The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: “(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama’s DAPA policy “violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.”

So, you ask, what is the “Take Care Clause”?

According to Heritage.org,

The Take Care Clause (also known as the Faithful Execution Clause) is best read as a duty that qualifies the President’s executive power. By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the lawful and control the lawful execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

So, by giving an individual, who has broken our laws, by entering our Sovereign Nation illegally, Federal benefits, reserved to provide for the welfare of actual American Citizens, Obama is “taking care” of dutifully executing our Nation’s Laws?

Sure, he is.

And Rosie O’Donnell has a “bikini body”. (Let that image settle in for a moment.)

Is breaking into our country, something that should be rewarded?

No.

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.

And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

My concerns about all of Obama’s, the Democrats’ and the Vichy Republicans’ coddling of the illegal aliens and the often-proposed “Path to Citizenship” business, can be divided into three bullet points. (Hey, I’m a Former VP of Marketing. What do you expect?)

1. Patriotism – Will these new “citizens” be willing to fly our flag above theirs? Will they be willing, if called upon, to serve in our Armed Forces, at home or abroad? Will they love this country, more than the one they left?

2. Loyalty – When these “new Americans” achieve the right to vote, are they all going to vote Democrat, so that they can receive more FREE STUFF? Is the Republican Party shooting themselves in both feet by pushing an outcome which will simply add new Democratic Voters? As I asked in the first point, will they honestly embrace our sovereign nation as their new home? Or, will they remain loyal to Mexico?

3.  Immigration – Are we rewarding illegal behavior, while at the same time, insulting all of the brave souls who have come here legally, seeking a better life for themselves and their families?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

Like the rest of his Far Left Brothers and Sisters, Barack Hussein Obama exhibits the symptoms of a disease that I’ve noticed that most of the Far Left exhibit: Narcissistic-Reality-Denial-Over-Educated-Beyond-Their-Intelligence Syndrome. The patient tends to rely on his self-assumed superior intellect, denying the reality of the world around him to the point of forsaking both his allegiance to and concern for the people of the country that has provided him with both his livelihood and his well-being.

This syndrome seems to be extremely pernicious in academic and political figures. The patient actually believes that he is an expert on everything, to the point where he can write and distribute instructional theses to seasoned professionals while lecturing them in a didactic manner.

The only treatment for Narcissistic-Reality-Denial-Over-Educated-Beyond-Their-Intelligence Syndrome at this time is “refudiation” and isolation. The people who are being affected by these individuals must, in a clear and over-whelming manner, let the patient know that they do not accept their attitude or actions and put them in a “time-out”.

In Obama’s Case, Americans must send a clear rejection of his Presidency, when we vote in a new President of the United States of America, this November.

Y’know…at the rate that this educated-beyond-his-intelligence, imperious, golf-playing, gum-smacking buffoon keeps obviously running our nation into the ground, I fully expect him, one day soon, to respond to an economic question at one of his almost non-existent press conferences by answering:

Let them eat arugula!

Until He Comes,

KJ

SCOTUS Dissects the Individual Mandate. Wishbone, Anybody?

Conservative Judges on the Supreme Court performed an oral dissection on the Individual Mandate found in Obamacare, yesterday.

Reuters.com has the story:

The Obama administration faced skeptical questioning from a U.S. Supreme Court dominated by conservatives on Tuesday during a tense two-hour showdown over a sweeping healthcare law that has divided Americans.

A ruling on the law’s key requirement that most people obtain health insurance or face a penalty appeared likely to come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, two conservatives who pummeled the administration’s lawyer with questions.

But Roberts and Kennedy also scrutinized the two attorneys arguing against the 2010 law, which is considered President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

The two pivotal justices on the nine-member court asked highly nuanced questions on Tuesday, the second of three straight days of oral arguments. They seemed torn on whether it would be more of a break from past cases to strike down the so-called individual mandate to obtain insurance or to uphold it.

Aggressive in their questioning of both sides, the justices fired off hard-hitting queries about the limits of the federal government’s power and whether it could even extend to requiring eating broccoli and buying gym memberships or cars.

While conservative justices took aim at the insurance mandate, liberal justices supported it.

The administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, told the justices that Congress, in passing the law, was trying to address the troubling problem of shifting costs from people who are uninsured to those who purchase coverage, arguing “the system does not work” and lawmakers were addressing “a grave problem.”

At stake is the power of Congress to intervene in one of U.S. society’s most difficult problems – soaring healthcare costs and access to medical care. Annual U.S. healthcare spending totals $2.6 trillion, about 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product, or $8,402 per person.

So, what happens to the American Taxpayer if the Supreme Court rules that the Individual Mandate is Constitutional and it goes into effect in 2014?

Per heritage.org:

In essence, the mandates on individuals to purchase health insurance will raise taxes on families. When fully implemented in 2016, the individual penalty for not complying will reach up to $695 per person (for up to three people or $2,085 per household) or 2.5 percent of taxable income.[5] Many healthy but uninsured individuals will now be forced to buy insurance plans under the PPACA. This added cost–whether as new premiums or as a penalty for not purchasing insurance–is a de facto tax increase for these individuals.

Employers also have a new mandate to provide health insurance for their employees. Employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time employee who receives a premium tax credit will pay a fine of $2,000 per employee (excluding the first 30) or $3,000 per employee receiving the premium tax subsidy.

As with the individual mandate, families will feel the bite of these tax increases in two ways:

If an employer begins to offer insurance, the wages of those employees to be covered will drop by the amount that the newly provided health insurance plan costs the employer.

If the employer fails to offer coverage, it will pay the tax, and the employee’s compensation will fall by that amount.

Either way, workers’ total compensation does not change; only its composition changes. But because workers will be forced to take more of their compensation in the form of health insurance, their cash wages will fall, and they will have less flexibility to use their earnings as they wish. Even though their total compensation will not change, lower cash income will negatively affect middle- and low-income families.

Heckuva job there, Barry.

This important moment in our country’s history continues tomorrow.  Here’s the schedule:

Wednesday, March 28, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument)

The Issue: If the mandate must go, can the rest of the law survive?

The challengers maintain that, if the Court strikes down the mandate, it should invalidate the rest of the law as well. The administration will argue that a few related provisions would have to go if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, but the rest of the law should remain in force. The Court appointed an amicus counsel, H. Bartow Farr, III, to stake out a third position: that the mandate is completely severable, so nothing else in Obamacare needs to change even if the Court gives the mandate the heave-ho. Clement will speak for the challengers and Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler will represent the administration.

Wednesday, March 28, 1:00 p.m. – (one hr. of argument)

The Issue: Does Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and the conditions for any federal funding of it violate basic principles of federalism?

Clement will argue that the law effectively coerces states to participate in a radically more expansive Medicaid program than what they have worked under for decades. In the early years of the expansion, slated to begin in 2014, the feds will supposedly pick up all the new costs. But the states argue the expansion will impose massive new costs almost immediately, which will only increase in future years when the federal government decreases its payments. Verrilli will argue that the federal government can alter the terms of the federal-state program any time it wants to and, if the states don’t care for the changes, they can just opt out of Medicaid.

The Supreme Court does not allow oral arguments to be broadcast live, either on TV or radio. For this case, it will release an audio tape of the arguments a few hours after they conclude. For more timely reports on the arguments, check the Foundry [at heritage.org], where reports and pod casts will be posted soon after the sessions’ closings.

SCOTUS will not hand down their ruling on Obamacare until June.  Until then, all Americans can do is watch, wait…and pray.