Category Archives: Justice

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: …


The Lobbyists:

UPDATED: In Order To Survive, Perhaps Christians Should Consider Converting To Judaism?

Christianity, Islam, Judaism & Jews, Justice, Left-Liberalism

There’s none of this turn-the-other-cheek, love-your-enemy, expiate-for-enemy’s-sins stuff in The Hebrew Bible and in Judaism, generally. There’s justice. Be just to your enemies, yes! But love them, welcome them into your home, let them walk all over you, even kill you when The Prophet moves them? Never!

In order to survive, perhaps Christians should consider converting to Judaism?

Just a thought.

UPDATED: On the other hand, maybe Christianity has been hijacked by leftists. See Facebook discussion.

Question The Judiciary Only When Establishment Says So

Donald Trump, Federalism, Justice, Law, The Courts

Didn’t liberals, GOPers included, caution just the other day that our federal system (the holy trinity of colluding branches) rests on the little people not questioning the judiciary out loud, or was that a Trump-specific injunction? A. J. Delgado wants to know:

UPDATED: Judge Alberto Gonzales For Trump Vs. Judge Gonzalo Curiel For La Raza

Criminal Injustice, Donald Trump, Justice, Law

Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a picture of judicial impropriety, claims Alberto R. Gonzales, “White House counsel and U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of law at Belmont University College of Law in Nashville, Tenn.”

Yet not one anti-Trump, indignant journo—from Megyn Kelly (Fox News) to Chris Matthews to Katy Tur to Joe Scarborough to Chris Hayes (MSNBC) to Don Lemon to Erin Burnett (CNN) to Trump’s proliferating, less-than-competent female surrogates, to the domesticated Republicanscondemning the candidate—has mentioned Gonzales’ name or the incriminating facts he divulged about Justice Curiel’s unfitness to sit in judgment of Donald Trump.

Gonzales wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled “Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair”:

“… An independent judiciary is extremely important. But that value is not the only one in play here. Equally important, if not more important from my perspective as a former judge and U.S. attorney general, is a litigant’s right to a fair trial. The protection of that right is a primary reason why our Constitution provides for an independent judiciary. If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as being impartial, the public will quickly lose confidence in the rule of law upon which our nation is based. For this reason, ethics codes for judges — including the federal code of conduct governing Curiel — require not only that judges actually be impartial, but that they avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” That appearance typically is measured from the standpoint of a reasonable litigant. …”

“… Certainly, Curiel’s Mexican heritage alone would not be enough to raise a question of bias (for all we know, the judge supports Trump’s pledge to better secure our borders and enforce the rule of law). As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interest.”

“But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization. Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election. These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered. Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons. … .”

MORE: “Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair.”