Posted on 02/08/2017 4:35:27 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: I want to get to the Ninth Circus here, the oral arguments yesterday, because the judge panel could rule at any moment, even if its like 9:34 out there now. Everybody expects them to move quickly here. Trump today went and spoke to law enforcement officers and sheriffs. He was standing there I watched it and he read aloud Title VIII, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code, which is the law involved here, which is the statute that permits his executive order. And this is it:
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.
And Trump said (paraphrased), “It’s not just me. It’s for Obama. It’s for Ronaldus Magnus. It was done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens. It has nothing to do with religion.” So a helpful reminder that Obama initiated a six-month ban on anybody from Iraq coming into this country, and nobody had a problem with it. So, then, Trump said that he listened to oral arguments about the legal challenges to his executive order, because the Ninth Circus made them available for audio streaming.
And he said, “When you read something so perfectly written, so clear to anybody, the courts seem to be so political. It would be so great for our court system to just read a statement and do what’s right.” Let me just tell you about this. (interruption) “In a sterile world” is exactly right. Let me read this to you again. There’s nothing ambivalent here. There’s nothing that is in any way confusing or that would provide any out from legal opposition. “Whenever the president…” By the way, this is a law passed and debated in Congress.
It was legislation signed into law by the president at the time. “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.” There’s no wiggle room there. There’s no alternate interpretation. (chuckles)
There’s no reading between the lines to find out what they really meant here. It is as crystal clear as can be. This is why Judge Robart in the state of Washington did not use the law in issuing a temporary stay of the executive order. He couldn’t! He had to go off on tangents and use other things, such as it’s a religious ban, or it’s unfair, or it’s bigoted. And remember Judge Robart is not a Republican. He’s a Republican-appointed judge, but he is a left-wing judicial activist actually chosen by Patty Murray, the senator.
Now, heres the legal theory on which opponents to Trump are trying to have this thing thrown out. The theory is that this statute cannot override constitutional rights, that no president is able to issue an executive order that overrides any persons constitutional rights. Now, common sense says: That should have nothing to do with this, because were talking about aliens! Were talking about people outside the country who want to come in. They are not citizens. Therefore, citizenship is not being denied. Citizenship is not being trampled.
Because we are talking about aliens and immigrants, refugees and all that outside the United States, who have no constitutional rights. However, there is a little gray here because some of the aliens affected by the Trump executive order have been in the United States before. They left, and they were prevented from getting back in by the issuance of the executive order. But they had been here before, and some of them have some degree of legal status here. But it isnt citizenship that they have, the people were talking about and the people that Trump wanted to restrict from coming in.
Now, the left is arguing that this little bit of gray area gives them a measure of constitutional rights, gives these aliens who have been in the country before but who then left and wanted to come back and now cant get in because of the order Well, the left says, They had quasi-constitutional rights. They had a measure of them, cause theyve been here. As an example of this, the police cannot enter the home of an alien criminal suspect without a warrant, even though the alien is not a citizen. There are still constitutional rights that do descend to a criminal alien suspect.
The Fourth Amendment applies to them just as it does to citizens. This has been so ruled by the courts. Now, whatever the merit of this argument, the fact remains that the rights of aliens who have some legal status in our country cannot outweigh the security of American citizens from foreign threats. In other words, this should not matter. The leftist argument is, Wait a minute. You are denying somebodys constitutional rights because they have been here before. Some of these aliens that wanted to come in and were prevented had been here before.
They had lived here. They may not have had citizenship, but they had been effectively quasi-citizens by virtue of the way they lived and the way they were treated. And the answer to that is: Doesnt matter. A, theyre not citizens. But, B, we cannot allow that small subset group of people to supersede national security! The left says, Damn right! Yes, we can. Screw you! Were gonna do anything we can to stop this president. Were gonna do everything we can to stop Trump, and well go any legal avenue open to us.
But again their argument I think is specious and Swiss cheese because the rights of the aliens were talking about do not have citizenship. Theyve got some legal status, but they dont have citizenship. You cant allow deference to them to outweigh the security of American citizens from foreign threats. This is a matter the Constitution delegates to the political branches, not the judicial. The Constitution doesnt give the judiciary a role here in national security, and they cannot assume it. So the president, whoever it is in this case, Trump has a very high degree of constitutional authority to repel foreign threats. And Congress, which has the authority to determine the qualifications an alien must meet to enter our country, has delegated sweeping authority to the president in the statute that I just quoted.
He has total say-so, by proclamation. He can suspend entry into this country by aliens, illegal immigrants, anybody, at a time he thinks we are under threat, and he can determine how long that ban is. Congress has given the president that sweeping authority. I sent this to a legal friend of mine to make sure that my interpretation was correct, and I highlighted the word he, he shall deem necessary, he may deem appropriate. Thats in reference to the president.
And the fact that the word he and singular and the reference to the president is in a statute that was passed by the Congress indicates Congress wanted the security decision made by the president alone. Thats why I said theres no ambiguity here, and theres no ambivalence. The power vested in the president here is total and complete, by Congress. They wanted the security decisions made by the president alone, not the president under the supervision of the federal courts.
Nowhere in this statute is there any reference to the judiciary at all. Theres no reference to the judiciary having review, that the judiciary must sign off on whatever the president does. Thats why what Judge Robart did is totally wrong! As a matter of law, Judge Robart was way outside his legal purview in issuing the stay.
And he did it because hes a leftist hack doing the bidding of the side he agrees with. His ruling, if you go look at it, he didnt address the law at all because he cant. He cannot stay Trumps executive order on matters of the law, and thats why Trump is out tweeting how unfortunate all this is that politics by the way, its not politics; its liberalism. Its liberalism.
Now, Trumps saying politics, I know why hes saying that. Calling it the courts getting political is probably a little bit more effective in persuading people to your side than attacking liberals because it just is. Because people instinctively know the courts shouldnt be politicized, you know, civics 101, courts should not be politicized, and people think that they arent and shouldnt be. So I understand Trump using the word politics instead of liberal. But theyre a bunch of left-wing hacks, and two more of them on the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel.
Siccem’ President Trump!!!
Trump needs to do what Andrew Jackson did !! Tell them to go pound sand.
A federal judge has as much a right to question the president on this matter as they have to question the president on a battle during war.
That is to say, NONE.
since when does a district court judge get to second guess the President on security?
We need Gorsuch on SCOTUS, NOW.
whole passel of “judges” need being dragged behind pick up trucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.