The real crux of the issue then becomes whether the rights of one party (in this case, the states) trump the rights of the other (in this case the federal gov't)? If harm can be asserted and the state's issued relief, then does the by-product include nullifying the fed's power over travel?
Anyone with common sense can see directly where this leads. There would be no end to peripheral attacks on direct law. It's obvious why opponents shopped this case to this judge.
It will be interesting to see how Trump plays his cards. One option is to appeal it to the 9th and basically dare them to uphold it. They have to know a constitutional crisis would be in the making, because at that point Trump would merely assert they have no standing with regard to national security and ignore the order.
At that point, all hell breaks loose because at the heart of the issue is the court's **actual** constitutionally provided role. Their ability to opine and judge on the merits of 'constitutionality' in the first place are merely asserted rights from Marbury. Only by habit and custom have they continue to enjoy that power.
Do they really want to go down the road where this question is ultimately resolved?
Thanks for the analysis! Excellent read of the situation!
Heres a link to the 9th circuit, can see if anything comes in to their “in box”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3521335/posts?page=38#38
H/t voluntaryist
It’s amazing how they found “standing” so quickly, but no one anywhere in the US had standing in any court to investigate Obama’s birth certificate
No, by design. These cowards have used the Courts to hide their true agenda for decades. Anyone remember when little Jebby washed his hands of the Terri Schiavo murder case? Saying the Court had ruled and his hands were tied. Jeb wasn't the only one that hid, so did the whole of Congress, because they are in agreement with the concept.