Category Archives: Constitution

UPDATED: Coequal in Tyranny: The Ninth Circuit’s Rules for Radicals

Constitution, Critique, Donald Trump, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Iran, Justice, Law, Neoconservatism

“Coequal in Tyranny: The Ninth Circuit’s Rules for Radicals” is the current column, now on Townhall.com. An excerpt:

Read the judicial rules for radicals issued by the United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in affirmation of the ban on The Ban. It follows the Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, with the imprimatur of 62 million voters, to protect the nation from foreign terrorists entering into the United States. Two states objected to the president’s undeniably badly written Order, which, while upholding negative rights—and neither denying natural rights nor minting positive ones—was nevertheless replete with administrative errors.

Acting as coequal partners in the administrative tyranny the president is trying to break, the two states issued a temporary restraining order against “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” (I can already hear the election midterm ads.)

In the corner for the Deplorables was a government lawyer. August Flentje Esq. had “argued” (if you can call it that) for an emergency stay of the Washington State district court’s temporary restraining order against the president. The three Ninth Circuit jurists who heard the case said no.

CAREER GOVERNMENT LAWYERS. If you’re good at what you do, you look to make it in the private sector (as our president did, before he did us a favor). If not, you seek sheltered employment (as President Trump’s predecessor did). Clearly, clerking for the Supreme Court, as August Flentje had done, doesn’t mean a whole lot.

In presenting the oral arguments for the president and the people, Flentje evinced a level of incompetence that spurred the Bench to the heights of usurpation. For example, when The Court caviled about an alleged lack of evidence for the necessity of the “travel ban,” not only did Flentje fail to provide it, but he failed to question the need for this evidence based on the scope of the president’s constitutional, executive power in matters of nation security.

Mr. President: You promised to hire the best. Alan Dershowitz is champing at the bit. Kris Kobach would kill it in any court. (Jonathan Turley is soft. Don’t touch Fox News’ tele-judges.)

Helped by the poor job stumblebum Flentje did in arguing the president’s prerogative and position, the Ninth Circuit judges usurped President Trump’s constitutional authority, substituting their own judgment for his. The three refused to lift the ban on the ban and reinstate an Executive Order that was never meant to be subjected to judicial review, in the first place.

GEORGE W. BUSH’S LAWYER. Those on the Right who opposed George Bush during his presidency (check) were vindicated yet again. In the nooks-and-crannies of our command-and-control judiciary, Bush had squirreled away a jurist as bad as John G. Roberts Jr.

Recall, Roberts, chief of the country’s legal politburo of proctologists, rewrote Obama’s Affordable Care Act. He then proceeded to provide the fifth vote to uphold the individual mandate undergirding the law, thereby undeniably and obscenely extending Congress’s taxing power. (Lazy government worker Paul Ryan still hasn’t come up with an alternative to ObamaCare, one that’ll prevent the Left from torching the country. Patience. It’s only been eight years.)

The unelected Bush appointee under discussion is from my State of Washington. District Judge James L. Robart, like Bush, would wrestle a crocodile for an illegal immigrant. Or, for potential immigrants, preferably from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan.

Having been granted standing by the Ninth Circuit to appeal President Trump’s Executive Order, Robart, as explained by a Daily Caller contributor, “hinged his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, …

… READ THE REST.  “Coequal in Tyranny: The Ninth Circuit’s Rules for Radicals” is the current column, now on Townhall.com.

Best tweet:

Best retort to #9thCircuit nutters: US can bomb the 7 Muslim countries. That's constitutional. It can't peacefully disassociate from them. https://t.co/c1JG0qdhgl

Posted by Ilana Mercer, Author on Thursday, February 9, 2017

FACEBOOK:

Noah Purcell, you don’t represent Washington State. You, the tech execs and social justice clientele are having a ‘moment.’ Enjoy! It won’t last! You didn’t even have standing to bring the case. You’re asserting the rights of people who are not even Americans. You’re a joke. The 9th circuit is a joke.

Classic Coulter: As Immigration Continues, So America Ends

Ann Coulter, Constitution, Criminal Injustice, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Propaganda

Ann Coulter:

… To review:

— When the president’s immigration policy is to promote international communism: The president wins.

— When the president’s immigration policy is to transform America into a different country: The president wins.

— But when the president’s immigration policy is to protect Americans: Some piss-ant judge announces that his authority exceeds that of the president.

This is exactly what I warned you about in Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole. Nothing Trump does will be met with such massive resistance as his immigration policies.

The left used to attack America by spying for Stalin, aiding our enemies, murdering cops and blowing up buildings. But, then liberals realized, it’s so much more effective to just do away with America altogether!

Teddy Kennedy gave them their chance with the 1965 immigration act. Since then, we’ve been taking in more than a million immigrants a year, 90 percent from comically primitive cultures. They like the welfare, but have very little interest in adopting the rest of our culture.

In many parts of the country, you’re already not living in America. Just a few more years, and the transformation will be complete. There will be a North American landmass known as “the United States,” but it won’t be our country.

The only thing that stands between America and oblivion is a total immigration moratorium. We are well past the point of quick fixes — as Judge Robart’s delusional ruling proves.

… The judiciary, both political parties, the media, Hollywood, corporate America and approximately 1 million lobbying groups are all working frantically to bring the hardest cases to our shores. Left-wing traitors, who used to honeymoon in Cuba and fight with peasant revolutionaries in Peru, toil away, late into the night, to ensure that genocidal Rwandans can move to America and immediately start collecting food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security.

No matter how clearly laws are written, government bureaucrats connive to import people from countries that a majority of Americans would not want to visit, much less become. Federal judges issue lunatic rulings to ensure that there will never be a pause in the transformation of America.

Congress could write laws requiring immigrants to pay taxes, learn English, forgo welfare and have good moral character. It could write laws giving the president authority to exclude aliens in the public interest.

Except it already has. Those laws were swept away by INS officials, federal judges and Democratic administrations — under ferocious pressure from America-hating, left-wing groups.

The country will not be safe until the following outfits are out of business:

The ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project; the National Immigration Forum; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the Office of Migration and Refugee Services; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the American Immigration Lawyers Association; the Border Information and Outreach Service; Atlas: DIY; the Catholic Legal Immigration Network; the Clearinghouse for Immigrant Education; the Farmworker Justice Fund; Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship; the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force; the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; the National Association for Bilingual Education; the National Clearinghouse on Agricultural Guest Worker Issues; the National Coalition for Dignity and Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants; the National Coalition for Haitian Rights; the National Council of La Raza; and the National Farm Worker Ministry.

And that’s only a small fraction of the anti-American immigration groups assiduously dragging the Third World to our shores — while you were busy working. …

The rest.

Of Course The President’s Ban Is Constitutional

Constitution, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Justice

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. —The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Section, 212(f).

President Donald Trump’s moratorium on the entry of all refugees into the United States, and “an order for ‘extreme vetting’ as a condition for entry for some foreign citizens,” is constitutional. This is old hat; discussed, too, in my book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed.” (June, 2016).

No fan of the executive order, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says he disagrees with his “colleagues at George Washington University Law School and other law schools that the order is clearly unconstitutional”:

…Courts are not supposed to rule on the merits of such laws but their legality. I think that the existing precedent favors Trump.

First, this is not a religious ban. When it was first discussed on the campaign, it was described as a ban on Muslims. This is not a religious ban. It certainly can be opposed as having that effect but there are a wide array of Muslim countries not covered by the ban and would not be impacted by the restrictions. A court cannot in my view treat this order as carrying out a religious ban as it is currently written. (Trump’s comments that he wants to prioritize Christians could raise more compelling arguments of religious discrimination).

Second, the law largely suspends entry pending the creation of new vetting procedures. That is based on a national security determination made by the President. Courts have generally deferred to such judgments. A president’s authority is at its zenith on our borders. Hillary Clinton herself campaigned on carefully vetting refugees (though she favors increasing such entries). In a November 2015 national security speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said “So yes, we do need to be vigilant in screening and vetting any refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security professionals in close coordination with our allies and partners.”

Finally, there is precedent for limited entry from particular countries going back to some of the earliest periods in this country. The earlier immigration laws include the 1875 Page Act which focused on Asian immigrants and those believes to be engaged in prostitution or considered convicts in their native countries. Then there was the infamous 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Then there were other measures limiting immigration from particular areas like the 1906 “Gentleman’s Agreement” (Japanese aliens) and the or the 1917 Immigration Act (“Asiatic Barred Zone”). In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed the “Quota Acts” limiting entry from disfavored countries. of nations from whom no further immigrants would be accepted. In every case, immigration policy continued to develop as a series of widening, discriminatory exclusions. It was not until 1965 that we broke from our long and troubling history is such discrimination. However, The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act contains section, 212(f) that gives sweeping authority on the exclusion of certain aliens: …

… READ THE REST.


The Lobbyists:

UPDATED: An ‘Ebullient’ President-Elect Who Cares About The Constitution As A Timeless Document

Barack Obama, Constitution, Donald Trump, EU, Europe, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Natural Law

Our magnificent President-elect Donald Trump spoke to libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano about constitutional originalists—who is; who isn’t—and the meaning of the Constitution.

Mr. Trump also asked Judge Napolitano about how you stop The Bureaucracy from legislating. As you all know, we live under a Managerial State, where the bureaucracy has vast discretion to pass and enforce laws that are never vetted by our so-called law-makers and representatives. These cockroaches have allowed it.

The Chevron Doctrine:

Did Barack Obama ever make such an inquiry? No. Barack Obama was not in the habit of hiding how he felt about the US Constitution. As much as he disliked the philosophical foundations of the republic, the president seemed to know a bit about the intent. Here’s Senator Barack Obama talking about the document Republicans seldom mention and Democrats deem dated:

… as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution … generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

The president recognized and rejected “the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties.” Because of the obstacles the Constitution poses to “redistributive justice,” community organizing à la Obama aims at achieving extra-constitutional change.

MORE GREATNESS FROM TRUMP: