Our firm was asked by the U.S. Justice Foundation to prepare a legal evaluation of the Donald Trump proposal to temporarily ban immigration from Muslim countries. Our report, concluding that there is substantial legal authority and precedent for that proposal, was released today.
The Western Journalism Center published our summary of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejecting Obama’s deferred action plan, in Texas v. United States.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, supporting the challenge by State of Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s misuse of “executive action” (“DAPA”) to implement provisions of the DREAM Act that Congress refused to enact.
Our brief was filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, TREA Senior Citizens League, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc., U.S. Border Control Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, Institute on the Constitution, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Herb Titus and Bill Olson wrote the article “Arizona v. United States: Reading the Tea Leaves of Oral Argument” published on AmericanThinker.com today. An excerpt from the article follows:
“Justices Scalia and Kennedy’s questions seemed to track our brief’s line of reasoning, asking whether Arizona had the power to exclude aliens who are not legally in the country. If so, then Arizona’s policy of enforcement by attrition is perfectly permissible, General Verrilli’s claims to the contrary notwithstanding. If Arizona has retained its inherent sovereign authority to defend its internal borders, except as specifically limited by the Constitution, then not one of the four contested provisions of the state’s immigration law is preempted by federal law.”
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of State of Arizona et al.v. United States in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners.
Our amicus brief argues that S.B. 1070 is a constitutional exercise of Arizona’s inherent power of self-preservation, the purpose of which is “attrition” of the numbers of illegal aliens living in Arizona. As an exercise of the State’s concurrent power over immigration, Arizona’s S.B. 1070 is not preempted by federal law. Arizona’s S.B. 1070 is an exercise of its constitutional power to engage in war against an actual invasion. The current illegal immigration into Arizona constitutes an “actual invasion,” and Arizona’s “policy of attrition by enforcement” is a proper exercise of its express power to defend against an actual invasion. Instead of performing its constitutional duty to protect Arizona against invasion, the federal government has undermined the State, placing upon it unfunded mandates that attract illegal aliens into the State, and bestowing benefits upon illegal aliens for political reasons.
Chuck Baldwin’s editorial opinion “Obama Administration ‘Rigging’ US Census By Counting Illegal Aliens” discusses our amicus brief in the case of Louisiana v. John Bryson in the United States Supreme Court. Our amicus brief was filed in support of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, challenging the constitutionality of the 2010 Census. Chuck Baldwin is one of the amici curiae.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Louisiana v. John Bryson in the United States Supreme Court in support of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, challenging the constitutionality of the 2010 Census.
The United States Census Bureau maintains that it “is required by the U.S. Constitution to count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.” Our amicus brief argues that the Census Bureau claim is demonstrably untrue.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of State of Arizona et al.v. United States in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari. Our brief argues that it is the preeminent duty of the Supreme Court to preserve the balance between the federal and state governments struck by the United States Constitution.
While Article VI of the Constitution provides that constitutional federal law is the supreme law of the land, it is incumbent upon the courts to remember that the powers of Congress are few and definite, while the powers of the State are many and indefinite. Indeed, it is even more critical to recall that the governments of the original 13 states preceded the government of the United States both in time and in right. If this truth is forgotten, the Supremacy Clause will be misused, subordinating the several states to the national government when the Constitution is replete with provisions designed to preserve the States as sovereign political communities with reserved powers to protect and to preserve themselves as free and independent states.
On behalf of The Senior Citizens League, we submitted a “Petition In Support of Social Security Protection, and in Opposition to Bush Administration’s United States Mexico Totalization Agreement” to the Obama-Biden Transition Team.
A legal analysis of Birthright Citizenship, written by Bill Olson, Herb Titus and Alan Woll, was re-released by U.S. Border Control today. The paper, “Children Born in the United States to Aliens Should Not, by Constitutional Right, Be U.S. Citizens” was originally published in January 2001,and then updated in March 2003. The House of Representatives is expected to be considering legislation on this topic in the near future.
One Nation Indivisible recently published a paper, co-authored by Bill Olson, which reviews the history of the requirement that new citizens speak English as part of the naturalization process.
- Page 2 of 2