Back to the Border 2011

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Ronbass

Agreed. Troops are needed on the border. And the enablers need to be replaced.
Maybe those who are willing to go to the border should be redirected to tracking down the enablers.
According to some information I have received since my previous post, I am retracting my suggestion that a do over of the Minuteman project be attempted.
"

People should do what they feel best. It's not my place to judge other's activism.

I've been thinking of how to get to governmental enablers. Of course there are the election cycles in which candidates will suck the chrome off of political bumpers, so to speak, to get elected. Then they do what they want and find weasel words to justify turning their backs on their campaign rhetoric.

A lot of the problem, as I see it, boils down to numbers and areas of responsibility.

There are hundreds of congressional members who craft legislation and create the governmental budget, which is approved or vetoed by the President. A veto may be over ridden by a percentage vote in Congress.

There are perhaps hundreds of thousands of governmental employees who work in departments directly reportable to the President, including Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Congress may propose the laws and provide the funds these departments operate under, but they are not in the direct chain of command.

How do we get to Governmental employees who refuse to enforce the law? How is it that Obama or anyone in the chain of his command can dictate just which illegals are subject to enforcement and which will not be pursued?

The president can be impeached for dereliction of duty, but I don't see inclination in congress for this sort of action.

How does a Grand Jury get set into motion, can Napolitano be held accountable for restricting border and interior enforcement?

How would the Judiciary generally view such a thing?

[Eagle1]

How does a Grand Jury get set into motion, can Napolitano be held accountable for restricting border and interior enforcement?

How would the Judiciary generally view such a thing?

Ilbegone I've thought the same. I think that we can as a response to the unwilling politicians and legal entities that are unwilling to perform on the issue of illegal immigration we can, instead of going back to the borders as we did in 2005, gather under the concept of the American Grand Jury.

The idea is to make the needed accusations against those in power who are aiding and abetting the illegal invasion of this country. In addition we can protest for the removal from office and to have the offenders tried through the court system (even though they own it). This would only have impact if we can get media coverage.

The American Grand Jury can convene and try the politicians and such presenting evidence of their bias against the American People and their favoritism to the illegal alien.

Maybe I'm just desperate but at least it is an idea.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

How does a Grand Jury get set into motion, can Napolitano be held accountable for restricting border and interior enforcement?

How would the Judiciary generally view such a thing?

Ilbegone I've thought the same. I think that we can as a response to the unwilling politicians and legal entities that are unwilling to perform on the issue of illegal immigration we can, instead of going back to the borders as we did in 2005, gather under the concept of the American Grand Jury.

The idea is to make the needed accusations against those in power who are aiding and abetting the illegal invasion of this country. In addition we can protest for the removal from office and to have the offenders tried through the court system (even though they own it). This would only have impact if we can get media coverage.

The American Grand Jury can convene and try the politicians and such presenting evidence of their bias against the American People and their favoritism to the illegal alien.

Maybe I'm just desperate but at least it is an idea.

There has to be something.

I'm not sure how much "they" own the courts, It may be a crap shoot depending on funds to pursue the strategy and quality of legal counsel retained.

Here in California, as I recall, judges are nominated by the governor then voted on by the population.

At the federal level, judges are nominated by the President and voted on and ratified by the senate. There are thousands of federal judges. With all the other decisions a president has to make, the president probably won't know much about the candidates he is advised to nominate - sometimes by members of his own party in the senate. As well, an attorney who accepts the position will most likely take a huge pay cut to do so, so the acceptance of the offer could boil down to this:

1) extremely dedicated to whatever the candidate perceives to be justice
...A) Is recognized for fair mindedness and fair application of law
...B) Has an agenda which is supported by the President and majority of the Senate at the time of nomination, or is willing to whore himself out for a title.

This is one reason for so many different decisions by different judges on similar issues at the same time and different rulings by appellate courts from the very bottom up to the supreme court.

2) The position is a stepping stone to market oneself as having inside knowledge and experience IE: Elrod Scheister, Att'y at Law, Former Federal Judge

3) A crony on his last gig who couldn't buy another job and lucked out getting lifetime employment on the taxpayers' nickle.

There's lot's of room for incompetence and biased rulings in all three scenarios.



Immigration court is different. An immigration judge is ultimately an employee of the president through the Department of Justice.


I'm not sure about the media. Most "coverage" is either biased opinion presented as fact or sensationalized bullshit. But, I think the story would find its way out.