SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides
By John R. Houk
© June 4, 2017
Here is a quote that rings true about Lower Federal Courts
striking down President Trump’s Executive Order travel ban from Islamic
terrorist ridden nations or areas:
“Lower
federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional
based on their ideology, not the rule of law”.
The quote comes from
journalist author Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Press speculating with some positive certainty
that SCOTUS will strike down the Lower Courts to President Trump’s favor.
Gibbs’ positivism comes from
the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will
uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.
I pray Gibbs is correct. We
are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth
waiting to elect him as President.
There are roughly two trains
of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders
and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular
Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.
President Trump’s EOs ran
into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution
interpretation.
The Activist Judges struck
down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign
speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating
against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.
If a majority of SCOTUS
Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can
kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances
that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S.
Government.
WHY?
Because a Living Constitution
Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule
of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding
Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:
“[N]othing
in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the
Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are
equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to
decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves
in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in
their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson
[Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers
Warn About SCOTUS]
“[A]
limited Constitution … can be preserved in
practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty
it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the
Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or
privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be
to affirm … that men
acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize,
but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers
Warn About SCOTUS]
Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond
Date:
August 18, 1821
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have
never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our
federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . .
working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little
tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of
jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. (Thomas Jefferson - It has long
– Quotes Database)
Date:
June 14, 1788
The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either the
sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the
society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to
have neither force nor will. (The Judiciary – Quotes Database)
Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge
Spencer Roane
Categories: Courts / Judiciary
Date: September 6, 1819
The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the
hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they
please. (The Constitution – Quotes Database)
Date: June 14, 1788
And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can
have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to
fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it Proves – Quotes Database)
Categories: Separation of Powers
Date: January 30, 1788
The accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many,
and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced
the very definition of tyranny. (The Accumulation of all Powers
– Quotes Database)
These
are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch
dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your
own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category
Separation of Powers Quotations.
My
concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living
Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living
Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.
The
President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders.
How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a
take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.
Here is some further reading:
Why Judicial Supremacy Isn’t Compatible
with Constitutional Supremacy; By RAMESH PONNURU; National
Review; 9/10/15 4:00 AM
Living Constitution, fancy words for
judicial tyranny; Posted by Dstarr;
News from the Northwoods; 2/15/16 3:22 PM
JRH 6/4/17
****************
Supreme Court to Lift Ban
on Travel Ban
June 4, 2017
In Trump’s Travel Ban
Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed.
Among them is a law that gives the
Article I, Section 9 of the
United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons
from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.
Based on the original intent
of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few
Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and
are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.
Lower federal court judges
have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their
ideology, not the rule of law.
There is no authority granted
to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the
actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.
If President Trump understood
all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss
off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway. The courts have no
enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.
However, the president
decided to let the courts decide, and the next stop within days will likely be
the United States Supreme Court. A ruling is expected soon that would,
based on their “opinion” and the current misguided view of the Constitution, lift
a temporary stay on President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel
from six mostly Muslim countries.
Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue. The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited. It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States. As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.
Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue. The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited. It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States. As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.
The Democrats have somehow
equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany
treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War
II. The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and
full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with
the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.
As Commander in Chief, among
his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national
security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to
accomplish. Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs
rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed. If Islam doesn’t want us
fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either
terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own
house (if that is even possible). The problem is, like the Germans who
were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point. The
violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we
have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are
not in agreement with the violence.
We, as a nation, have the
right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose
to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).
While there is no timetable
on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again,
I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as
the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . .
aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their
opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the
issue. Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the
issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending. Trump’s Justice
Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue
now.
“The
justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits
of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be
temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the
order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”
The White House frames the
issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should.
Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the
duties of the President as Commander in Chief. His job to protect the
United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when
it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule
of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is
disgusting, and unconstitutional.
The executive order is the
second one. Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed
in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March
6. The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also
removed Iraq from the list of countries.
Officials say the new
executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a
valid visa.
The appeals court said its
decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning
Muslims.”
Chief Judge Roger Gregory
called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national
security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and
discrimination.”
Intolerance? The
Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left
Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding. What
about Islamic intolerance? How about we ban mosques in the United States
until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues
on their lands. Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they
search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite?
What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority
countries? Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?
By the way, the law that
started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration
began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the
McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict
immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to
our national security. It was passed during a time when we as a country
were worried about communist infiltration. Some Democrats weren’t too
happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored
law. Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain
refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North
Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do
you?
The court’s attacks against
the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with
who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges
before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their
unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their
bad constitutional behavior. Congress should also pass law nullifying
each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have
according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).
The problem, in short, is not
that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are
letting them.
The judicial branch is
supposed to be the weakest of the three branches. They are not supposed
to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or
existed) to take care of that. The judicial branch’s job is clear.
Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear. If they
believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion
so that Congress may reconsider the law. What they are doing now has
nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law. These leftist judges
are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are
misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.
They all need to be thrown
off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts
need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court - again, an
authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.
________________
Judicial Tyranny or
Constitutional Supremacy:
SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling
Decides
By John R. Houk
© June 4, 2017
________________
Supreme Court to Lift Ban
on Travel Ban
Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on
“Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows
and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his
Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative
political activist, writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at
douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C.
107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical
comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted
material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors
and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017
the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada
Free Press.Com
