DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Saturday, May 27, 2017

A New Round of Travel Ban Battles

By Douglas V. Gibbs

After an inferior federal court struck down his last "travel ban" executive order, Donald Trump wrote a new one.  This time, his administration believed it to be bullet proof.  The problem is, the leftist judges of the federal court system could care less about the rule of law.  Their concern is the rule of man, and the narrative of their ideology, which at this moment, hates Trump, and everything he does.  So, illegally and against all constitutional authorities, they have once again struck down Trump's executive order calling for a halt on the infiltration into our society by a Muslim jihadist enemy.

Rather than the immigration laws on the books, of which are listed in his executive orders, and are authorized by Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which gives the U.S. Congress the power to prohibit persons from migrating into the United States for any reason they desire (a power they transferred to the President through legislation should he deem it necessary in the name of National Security), the judges have shown us they are more interested in protecting their political whims and the leftist narrative, so they are ignoring the law and are instead supporting the lawlessness of the Democrat Party's wishes.  President Trump has vowed to take this latest assault by the federal judges on his constitutional powers as head of the executive branch to the United States Supreme Court, where he now has a conservative majority, again, or at least he does as long as Justice Kennedy behaves and resists the lies of the liberal leftists.

The judges and the Democrats say that the travel ban is racist, and unkind.  But, do those things override the law?  Does the law stop mattering when someone says it is unjust?  Rather than overturn the law with the whims of men in black judges, why not work to change the law through legislative protocols?  If the Democrats hate the current laws on the books so bad, why not pass a law that says immigration will not depend upon common sense, or the concept of having borders, but on the idea that anyone and everyone should be able to come into this country, regardless of their desire to participate in our society, or to destroy our culture?

The Democrats, and their allies on court benches, don't care about the rule of law, and they could care less about National Security.  Their aim is all about power.  Votes.  Creating enough chaos that creates a situation where more government is needed to quell the madness, and enough voters to get them back into power to fuel that desire for more government.

In addition to being the Commander in Chief, which gives the President of the United States the authority to protect our union through national security measures, it is his job to execute the laws of the United States (Article II, Section 1 and Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution).  His tool for that authority is the executive order.  While he cannot legislate with his tool of executive orders as President Obama had a habit of doing (Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution grants all legislative authorities to Congress), he can use them to delegate instructions down to his executive branch's agencies to carry out the laws.  That is what he is doing with his travel ban.  Trump is simply using his constitutional authority to execute the laws.

All executive authorities belong to the President of the United States (Article II, Section 1).  The judicial branch has no executive authorities, and no legislative authorities (separation of powers).  Therefore, the judges have no constitutionally granted authority to strike down Trump's executive orders, nor to enforce their decision.

As President Andrew Jackson said after the Worcester v. Georgia case in 1832, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

As Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, it's "the president's duty to protect the country from terrorism."

So, in a nut shell, President Trump's executive orders banning persons from a list of Muslim-majority countries is perfectly constitutional, and the court's freezing of those executive orders are not. . . and the court has no enforcement power to back their unlawful activism.  So, why is the Trump administration playing around with the courts as they are?  This administration needs to take a page from the Constitution, and tell the judicial branch to stick it.  Politics during a time of war, especially as the enemy is working to infiltrate our country, is irresponsible, and Trump needs to take action despite any Democrat Party protest, or judicial tyranny.

If the case works its way to the Supreme Court, it could be until next year before they take the case, and we could be in serious trouble by then.  That's why the President is Commander in Chief; so that he can handle threats quickly without the delay that can be caused by politics in the Congress, or the courts.

The first ruling came from the 9th Circuit Court.  This latest one came from the 4th Circuit, ruling 10-3 that the ban "likely" violates the Constitution.

Likely?  The law says what it says.  "Likely" is not a legal term, especially when it comes to the idea of contract law, and the U.S. Constitution.  Either, the authority is there, or it is not.  "Likely," or "religious test" has nothing to do with the law.  There is no authority given to the courts to place a ban regarding law passed, or the president executing the law, because he "likely" meant to do it in line with what he said during he campaign season.  The law is the law, and he has authority to execute it.  End of story.  Time for the courts to shut up and let the President of the United States do his job executing perfectly constitutional laws designed to provide for the common defense.

While the court's claim is that the ban is about "religion," and that makes it unconstitutional, the Trump administration has fallen for the trap argued by the 4th Circuit, which is claiming the countries were chosen because they are predominantly Muslim, not because they present terrorism risks.

According to the leftist judges, the President can't ban people for reason of religion.

Poppycock.

First, the executive order travel ban doesn't mention religion.  But, even if it did, from a constitutional manner, that does not matter.  The Freedom of Religion argument is based on the First Amendment, which disallows Congress from making laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  It has nothing to do with non-citizens, or immigration.  There is no constitutional provision disallowing the prohibition of immigrants (migrants, refugees) because of a religious test.  Besides, at what point do we decide if Islam is a religion (because they say so), or a political system (because that is what it acts as) that wishes to overthrow our constitutional system of government?

In fact, if the President did not write the executive orders banning Muslims from coming into the country, then he really would be acting unconstitutionally, because through inaction he would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

4th Circuit Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, however, doesn't care about the law and has ignored it to support his leftist ideological Marxist beliefs.  He wrote that the government's "asserted national security interest ... appears to be a post hoc, secondary justification for an executive action rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country."

The three dissenting judges, all appointed by Republican presidents, said the majority was wrong to look beyond the text of the order.  

Sessions said the court's ruling blocks Trump's "efforts to strengthen this country's national security."

So, while the courts and democrats play politics, they are also trying to handcuff our President, and better enable an ideology that has declared war on the United States (do they not take the "Death to America" chants seriously?) to infiltrate and defeat our country.  If anything, these judges and the Democrats should be arrested for treason (Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only of levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.")

The Democrats and Judges are aiding and comforting an ideology that has declared it is at war with us, and that they wish to overthrow our Constitution and replace it with sharia law, making the Democrat politicians and judges guilty of treason. The Trump administration should take actions to arrest these traitors to the union of States, and then do what needs to be done to protect this country against the invaders.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: