DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Another Federal Judge Rejects Trump's National Security Executive Order

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

First, I want the judges to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it states that the federal court system has any authority to overturn or nullify an executive order.  Second, I want the judges to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it expressly enumerates the power of the courts to strike down legislation or determine the constitutionality of legislation.  Third, I want them to show me in the U.S. Constitution where it shows that they have any enforcement power regarding their rulings or judicial opinions.

The fact is, the U.S. Constitution's original text, and all of the amendments that have been ratified by the States since the writing of the Constitution in 1787, do not grant to the courts any of those powers.  In fact, of the three branches, the judicial branch was originally intended to be the weakest of the the three branches of government (see my book "25 Myths of the United States Constitution" for an explanation about how the idea that we have three co-equal branches is a false teaching).

Regardless of authority, the federal judges continue to act in an activist manner legislating from the bench.

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals has struck again, ruling against President Trump’s extreme vetting national security constitutional prohibition of terrorists entering our country to kill us executive order, an executive order carrying out constitutional immigration and migration laws (Constitutional Authority Article I, Section 9) established by Congress, and an executive order following the Article II demand by the Constitution which states "he shall faithfully execute the laws of the United States."  Nonetheless, the rule of law means nothing to these judges, constitutional authority means nothing, and the concept of a limited government means nothing, so based on their ideology and the rule of man the 9th Circuit (Circus) upheld another illegal ruling, an injunction that somehow, though the courts have no enforcement powers, prevents the Trump administration from enforcing a suspension on travel from six Muslim countries.

"We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress," the judicial opinion said.

First of all, the President did not exceed the scope of his authority, and second, it's none of the court's business.  In fact, they are exceeding their scope of powers.  Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all legislative powers to the Congress, and Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all executive powers to the President.  The legislative branch made the laws, and with the executive order President Trump is executing those laws (of which are listed in the executive order).  The federal judiciary has no legislative powers, and no executive powers.  Their authority is to apply the law to the cases they hear, and the law says the President, when he believes a group of people may pose as a security risk to the national security of the United States, may put into place a temporary prohibition on the migration of that group into the country.  Then, if Congress wants to pass a law placing a prohibition on people from immigrating from a particular country to make it permanent until the law says otherwise, they can.

Poland has a strict policy regarding "refugees" from the Middle East, by the way.  They are one of the few countries in Europe not allowing any Middle Eastern Migrants into their country.  Most people don't know this because Poland is almost never in the news.  Poland is not in the news because they are not suffering from terrorist attacks, which is a direct result from their strict policies regarding immigration.

The 9th Circus ruling was unanimous.  All three criminal judges on a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Constitution, and against Trump's executive order.

The judges say the president violated U.S. immigration law by discriminating against people based on their nationality and that Trump failed to show their entry into the country would hurt American interests.

Hey, message to Congress: If there are any laws on the books stating immigration cannot be prohibited based on nationality, repeal that law.  Then, read the Constitution and notice no such stipulation is present in the document regarding immigration.  From the Framers' point of view, Congress has the authority to prohibit by law anyone they desire from entering this country for any reason from any country.

In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department disagreed with the decision, adding that the order was "well within [Trump's] lawful authority to keep the Nation safe."

Okay, Mr. Sessions, then move forward and execute the laws listed in the President's order.  Defy the courts who are acting illegally, and tell them to go back to their duties "applying the law," not interpreting it.  Defy them.  What are they going to do to enforce their rulings?  Cry to CNN and MSNBC?

The judges did not rule on whether the travel ban violated the Constitution's ban on the government officially favoring or disfavoring any religion. The 9th Circuit, considered among the most liberal circuits in the country, did side with the administration Monday in allowing the government to review vetting procedures. The judges directed a lower court to re-issue its preliminary injunction following the new guidance.
What ban on the government officially favoring or disfavoring any religion are they talking about?  And, who says Islam is a religion?  First, Islam is a way of life, the merging of political and religious powers that makes it anything but a pure religion.  In truth, it is a political system that masks itself as a religion.  Second, what is this garbage about a constitutional ban on government favoring or disfavoring any religion?  That's not what the Constitution says.  It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion."  In other words, Congress cannot make law creating a state-church.  It has nothing to do with immigration, or the religion of people who may or may not enter this country.  Besides, if it was about religion, there would be 57 countries on the list.  As for any argument regarding "religious tests", the only place that religious tests is even mentioned in the Constitution is in Article VI., which bans religious tests for office holders, not immigrants.

Once again, Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the authority to make law regarding "migration" and slavery (Importation of such persons) with the intent to prohibit as Congress feels necessary of any and all people they decide to write law prohibiting.  In 1808 this clause was used to outlaw the Atlantic Slave Trade, and throughout our history this clause has been used as the authority for immigration laws.

The opposition says the travel ban executive order, if enforced, would "thrust the country back into the chaos and confusion" that resulted when the policy was first announced in January.

No.  That chaos and confusion was created by the left because they wanted to make it look that way.   They created chaos and confusion so as to use mob violence to control the rule of law.  The law is the law.  What part of "the poison of violent jihad is mixed into the migrant population" do they not understand?

What the judges are doing is not the rule of law, and the Islamic crazies are playing the judges for fools (and tools).  The liberal left are pawns in the game of Muslim infiltration specifically designed to increase the percentage of the followers of Islam in our population for the carefully designed and intended reason of overthrowing our way of life, overthrowing our government, and overthrowing our Christian and Constitutional foundation.

Islam is already taking aim at our system, and they are using their strategy of deception to accomplish it.  Linda Sarsour is one of the traitors in this country trying to overthrow our Constitution and stoking the wave of fake hate crimes being committed by Muslims as they try to garner more support through their hate hoaxes.
Muslim activist Linda Sarsour has raised $110,000 and counting on the alleged beating of a Muslim woman in Columbus, Ohio – an area very heavily populated with Muslims, where a young Muslim woman, Rifqa Bary, had to flee for her life ten years ago after she said her father threatened to kill her for converting to Christianity, and one mosque has a history of terror ties.
On Sunday morning, Sarsour tweeted: “Please support Rahma, who was brutally beaten yesterday by a white male in Columbus, OH. This is unacceptable. http://www.launchgood.com/Rahma

Sarsour alleged that Rahma Warsame of Columbus was beaten into unconsciousness for standing up to a white supremacist. The true story, one eyewitness claims, is that Warsame was part of a violent mob seeking to defend a woman who was beating a child in full public view.
The problem is, Islam has declared war on our country.  The Republicans think it's a misunderstanding, and the Democrats have taken up arms with the enemy.  And to fight their war they are using every tactic they can, and all of it is rooted in deception.  Then, they are using the courts to uphold unlawful actions which endanger our way of life.  There is no authority in the Constitution that allows the courts to act the way they are acting. . . and for those of you out there ready to use Marbury v. Madison as your excuse, think about what you are saying.  If Marbury v. Madison gives the courts the authority to exercise the unconstitutional concept of judicial review (addressed heavily in my Concepts of the U.S. Constitution book), then you are saying constitutionality is determined by the courts giving themselves a power.  How is that limited government?  Authorities can only be granted by the States, which is why it takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment.

If Marbury v. Madison is the argument, then the argument is that the courts took the power for themselves without asking, and in my opinion, that is tyranny.  But, then again, by supporting activist judges and the import of terrorists, that is what you are shooting for, right?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and commentary

No comments: