Trump vows to fight activist judge’s refusal to honor executive order on travel ban from terrorist-harboring countries

Saturday, February 04, 2017 by

One of the president’s first and foremost duties is to protect the lives of American citizens. In fact, that duty is even enshrined in federal law. It is therefore amazing to see a federal judge take a clear look at the president’s responsibility and statutory law, and then issue a ruling based purely on politics.

Late Friday, Seattle-based U.S. District Judge James Robart, appointed by President George W. Bush, issued a temporary restraining order barring President Donald J. Trump’s executive order banning people from seven countries known to harbor terrorists from entering the U.S., The Hill reported.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

No, more like judicial activism won the day. More on that later. (RELATED: What other threats are there to your liberty? See for yourself at Liberty.news)

The law is clear. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Trump issued the 90-day order January 27, for the explicit purpose of preventing potential terrorists from getting into the country, a national security authority that most presidents before him have used to ban people from some of the same countries. President Obama used the authority enshrined in the U.S. Code often during his tenure, and so have the previous six presidents, The Daily Caller noted.

The Leftists who judge-shopped this case are trying to turn it into some sort of unconstitutional ban on a particular ethnic group or religion – they’re calling it a Muslim ban.

It’s not. It’s a ban on anyone coming from any of the seven-named countries, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Trump’s order says nothing about ethnicity or religious preference. But even if it were aimed at a particular ethnic group or religion, the language of the Act covers that, too: “any aliens or of any class of aliens.” After all, we’re not talking about a couple refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding; we’re talking national security here.

For its part, the Trump administration won’t take this lying down. The president tweeted out a series of messages early Saturday:

“When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security – big trouble!”

“Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it’s death & destruction!”

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

He’s probably right. Federal appeals courts, and especially the Supreme Court, are historically loathe to question a president’s national security decisions.

Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, called the judge’s ruling “outrageous,” and vowed that the Department of Justice would appeal it “at the earliest possible time.”

“The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people,” he said in a statement. (RELATED: Keep up with all threats to the American homeland at NationalSecurity.news)

More broadly, this goes to the heart of another problem that has developed over the decades: interference in the process of government by the Judicial Branch. The founders envisioned the Judiciary to be the least injurious to the Constitution and, as such, to the people. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #78:

“The Judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, 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, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [Emphasis added]

Any sane reading of the law upon which Trump based his executive order makes clear that he, as president, has all the authority he needs. If not, then why has this law been so successfully utilized in the past?

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

TheHill.com

DailyCaller.com

DailyMail.co.uk

GoodGopher.com

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

×
Please like our Facebook Page
Show us your support by liking our page!
Close This Box