Betrayed Again: Prominent Republicans File Brief Supporting Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

Imagine a prominent Democrat committee chairman promoting private Social Security accounts or right to work legislation. Try to picture a long-serving Democrat senator filing a brief in a pending Supreme Court case in favor of the right to concealed carry. You will have a tough time conjuring up such images because there are no prominent Democrats who promote major policy initiatives of the other side. Therein lies the imbalance between our nation’s two major political parties.

On Tuesday, the Orwellian-named Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief in support of Obama’s executive amnesty in U.S. v. Texas. The brief was filed on behalf of a number of former Republican members of Congress in addition to Democrat members. Not only do they support the underlying policy of open borders, this brief demonstrates that these Republicans, who were influential in crafting party policy in their respective times, do not believe in the Constitution nor in the concept of separation of powers. They defiantly assert that Obama’s executive amnesty “is legally no different than countless other exercises of executive discretion engaged in by presidents of both parties and blessed by both parties in Congress.”


Sure, a president unilaterally granting illegal aliens work permits, Social Security cards and a backdoor path to citizenship is just another day at work in the Oval Office.

Here is a list of the Republicans who signed onto the brief and a description of their respective careers in the House or Senate:

LaHood, Raymond H. (“Ray”) Former Representative of Illinois (1995- 2009); Member of the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee, and the Republican Mainstream Partnership; Former United States Secretary of Transportation (2009-2013)

Leach, James A. Former Representative of Iowa (1977- 2007); Chair of the House Committee on Financial Services; Member of the Committee on International Relations; Chair of the Subcommittee on Asian-Pacific Affairs; Chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities (2009-2013)

Lugar, Richard Former Senator of Indiana (1977-2013); Chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; Chair of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

Porter, John E. Former Representative of Illinois (1980- 2001); Member of the House Committee on Appropriations; Chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education

We have here a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a man who crafted foreign policy for Republicans for years, who has no regard for our sovereignty and the rule of law. We have Republicans who shaped our domestic policy for years and were viewed as titans of the legislature, yet they believe in the predominance of rule by executive fiat over congressional statutes. All of these individuals held prominent positions in the party for years and nobody ever questioned their commitment to the Constitution, much less the platform of the Republican Party. Now we all know it was built on a lie. For so many Republicans over the past few decades, this has all been a fake fight.

This is why voters in the GOP feel so angry and betrayed. This is why voters have permanently severed all ties and interest with anything that smacks of the party establishment. They now understand that while Democrats were intrepidly promoting their agenda for years, so many Republicans who were supposed to be combating their fundamental transformation were really wolves in sheep’s clothing.

When choosing your candidate for president, make that decision wisely, making sure you are not selecting someone who will turn around in a few years and champion the very causes he promised to fight against today. (For more from the author of “Betrayed Again: Prominent Republicans File Brief Supporting Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

  • c69101

    Scum!

  • RWS

    Madison and others believed factions (political parties) to be destructive of any republic. This betrayal of supposed principle for banal self-interest is another proof that he and they were accurate in their assessment.

  • 4freedom

    Let me guess, the turtle caved again.

  • reggiec

    It is my belief that numerous high level members of the Obama administration are in violation of their oath of office, The Constitution and U.S. law for the following reasons:

    The following is the oath of office for the president of the United States: “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.” All law enforcement and elected officials are required to take a similar oath to protect, defend and preserve our Constitution and faithfully execute our laws.

    Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution begins as follows: “The United States shall GUARANTEE (my caps) to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.” (The Obama administration has refused to do this)

    A republic defined:

    Noun 1. A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

    “Guarantee” is a legal term more comprehensive and of higher import than either warranty or “security”. It most commonly designates a private transaction by means of which one person, to obtain some trust, confidence or credit for another, engages to be answerable for him. It may also designate a treaty through which claims, rights or possessions are secured.

    Title 8 United States Code 1103(a) (5) states the following:

    “The Attorney General shall have the power and the DUTY (my caps) to control and guard the boundaries and borders of states against the illegal entry of aliens.” (The Obama administration has refused to do this)

    Duty:

    A legal obligation that entails mandatory conduct or performance.

    Title 8 USC1103 (a) (10) states the following:

    “In the event the Attorney General determines that an actual or imminent influx arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring immediate Federal response”—he can authorize state and local agencies to assist in carrying out his duties to protect our borders. State and local agencies consist of local police, sheriff departments, and the National Guard. (The Obama administration has refused to do this)

    Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

    A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

    * assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

    * encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

    * knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

    The Obama administration knows that In 2002, Congress tasked ICE with creating an “Alternatives to Detention Program”, which allows aliens “who present a low risk of flight, and who pose no danger to the community” to be released without detention as they await deportation proceedings. They are supposed to stay in contact but this administration knows that most just disappear. In addition they “released” 68,000 detained criminals into the US in violation of the “no danger to the community” requirement.

    It seems to me that the president, the secretary of Homeland Security, and the attorney general of the United States have not just an obligation but a sworn constitutional duty to control our national borders against invasion by illegal aliens and also to protect the individual states against invasion by this same group.

    If what is happening along our southern border is not an invasion, many people in this country have an entirely different belief of what the term means than do our leaders. The above indicated people seem to have purposely turned a blind eye to this problem for many years and should be forced to fulfill their sworn duties.

    Some will say that the definition of invasion applies only to military actions. My answer to them is the exact wording in Title 8 USC 8 (a) (5) above: “Guard the boundaries and borders of states against the illegal entry of aliens.” (The Obama administration has refused to do this)

  • Denice

    “When choosing your candidate for president, make that decision wisely,”… more importantly choose your state and local representatives carefully. As you said, they sat on committees, they made policy, (with think tanks producing their policy papers) Doesnt mean we flip one party for another. It takes time, reading, researching, talking, calling, to learn their positions. Small gov., Constitution. these matter. A Trump-like avenger may shake things up but it is not the sole answer. sigh

    • liberty49

      No, but Trump sends a message to the politicians that we want no more of them!

  • Nam1

    The operative word here is FORMER, and that’s how a lot of our current RHINO traitors will end up if they keep deceiving us.

  • Bob2002

    Most incumbents in my state do not even have a challenger to run against them in the primary elections this year. What does this say about our country? It is going to hell in a hand basket and no one is challenging the incumbent; not good for the nation because most incumbents are agreeing with the terrible policies of Barack Hussein Obama. This also could mean the Republican majority in the House and Senate is in danger of changing hands because we are tired of our Representatives not enforcing the laws.