Lance Op-ed: House Files Amicus Brief on Excutive Amnesty

Statement

The U.S. House of Representatives recently took an historic action. The House, as an institution, voted to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Texas -- the legal challenge to President Obama's executive orders giving amnesty to undocumented immigrants.

An amicus brief is when an organization submits its views to the Court in support of the position of the one of the sides in the case, usually presenting additional insight that sharpens the argument. Our House resolution authorizes Speaker Paul Ryan, on behalf of the House of Representatives, to file a brief in support of the position that the Obama Administration has overreached by changing existing laws of the United States and acting outside of the Constitution.

I agree that the President greatly exceeded his Constitutional authority and disregarded existing law to implement his amnesty plan for undocumented immigrants. His plan is widely unpopular with the American people. My vote with the majority of my colleagues puts the House on record before the Court.

The plaintiffs in this case are 26 States that are suing to stop implementation of the illegal amnesty program. Lower court rulings have sided with the States and put the President's orders on hold pending the appeal.

The Obama Administration has submitted a brief in defense of its actions. I believe the House of Representatives has standing to do the same and I have long believed that the proper venue to challenging the President's overreaching actions is primarily in the courts of this country. I was the only member of Congress from New Jersey to sign a previous amicus brief on this matter before the House took action.

The Obama Administration is trying to find a backdoor for its amnesty plan by suggesting Department of Justice and Homeland Security officials use prosecutorial discretion when deciding immigration cases. They are in essence instructing these departments to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States.

For years those of us in Congress have insisted we must secure our Nation's borders and reform our visa programs as the initial steps in solving our immigration problem. The President doesn't agree and decided to do things his way without Congress and against popular opinion.

As a lawyer who has practiced constitutional law in New Jersey, I have tried to study these issues closely. There is no gray area: Congress writes the laws and the Executive Branch enforces them.

The executive overreach consistently taken by this Administration demonstrates not only contempt for law, but a disregard for the critical balance of powers central to our Constitution. The American system of self-governance would not be as strong as it is if it were not for these bedrock principles.

The plan for illegal amnesty is only one example of the President's behavior. We have unelected officials in federal agencies who write our laws, Executive Branch agencies that appropriate taxpayer funds without authorization from Congress and departments that selectively decide which laws to enforce.

Action in the courts is prudent and may yield the type of precedent that will constraint future Presidents who overreach in their authority -- Republican or Democrat.

I am confident that the Supreme Court of the United States will rule that prosecutorial discretion cannot be expanded to break the rule of law. The President is overreaching and the House's amicus brief will help to defend our Article I powers under the Constitution.

Source