Posted on 03/15/2017 3:48:21 PM PDT by springwater13
BREAKING: Judge in Hawaii blocks Trump's new travel ban from taking effect nationwide tomorrow
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Very risky indeed with only 8 members. Now that the judicial branch is almost entirely political there is no reason to believe that SCOTUS would follow the Constitution. The effects of a negative ruling would set terrible precedent for all President’s going forwarded
We might has well just elect judges anymore, it’s obvious they have all the power and can overturn any presidents order they please...
Kennedy oversees 9th....surely he’s not this bad of a loose cannon.
“I’ve speculated all along that he’s going to have more trouble with the Republicans than the Dems.”
It’s remarkable that Trump has made it as far as he has with the entire corrupt ‘government’ & fakestream media working against him.
The fact that Trump is even tap dancing to these lawless edicts tells me there’s a realistic chance the Kabuki party may impeach him and he knows it.
The problem is the dems, media and their allies would scream for Trumps impeachment the second he disregarded a judges order, even if it was wrong, and they are just itching for a reason. But I do hope Trump cleans house one way or another.
Once again ... these are Democrats: they do not care what the law says or what is in the Constitution. They make their own laws as well as their own reality.
It is an exercise in futility to cite law to them. Their ears are plugged; their eyes are focused on things the rest of us are too stupid to see; while their minds dream of their current self made reality.
They’ll try impeachment. They’ll even make up the grounds themselves. It will keep them occupied.
Trump will keep his head down an go on about his business. I don’t think it’s possible to intimidate him.
What we’re seeing right now on RINOCare is the stage being set for negotiations. Trump knows it won’t pass. Let the RINOs knock themselves out. Trump can swoop in later and negotiate a better plan.
The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.
The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.
There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.
I wondered that, too. How hard was it for you to find out where BHO is? It looked like that info was scrubbed when I tried to find it.
The face of a legal illiterate.
The court issued an injunction so the ban is stayed.
I haven’t practiced law in nearly thirty years, but my best take on it is I’d appeal immediately, even though it will go straight to the 9th Circuit.
Then I’d put my AG and Solicitor General to work finding legal authority for the President’s right to take extraordinary action for national security reasons.
Out of 1000 people in the US currently under investigation for terrorism, 300 are refugees. That means at the current pace, fully one third of refugees are terrorists. I’d find that a compelling argument in favor of the executive branch stepping over a trial court’s ruling.
Yep. The law seems very explicit.
Declare the resettlement areas to be inside the gated community where the judges and liberals live.
Start moving the terrorist into rich liberal neighborhoods rather than rural conservative areas.
-—I wondered that, too. How hard was it for you to find out where BHO is? It looked like that info was scrubbed when I tried to find it. -——
I read it a news story before the judge nixed Trump’s ban.
This is a hotlink, so you can copy and paste or right click and open in new tab.
http://khon2.com/2017/03/13/former-president-obama-makes-unannounced-visit-to-oahu/
And there’s this... the Judge did meet with Barry.
“President Trump’s revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii just hours before it was set to take effect after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.
According to reports, Watson met with President Obama a day before requested a temporary restraining order on President Trump’s new executive order.”
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=68118
In 1861 John Merryman, a state legislator from Maryland was arrested for attempting to hinder Union troops from moving from Baltimore to Washington during the Civil War and he was held at Fort McHenry by Union military officials. His attorney immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus so that a federal court could examine the charges. However, President Lincoln decided to suspend the constitutional right of habeas corpus, and the general in command of Fort McHenry refused to turn Merryman over to the authorities.
Roger Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court issued a ruling that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln didn’t respond, appeal, or order the release of Merryman. But during speech, Lincoln was defiant, insisting that he needed to suspend habeas corpus in order to put down the rebellion in the South.
Five years later, a new Supreme Court essentially backed Justice Taney’s ruling: In an unrelated case, the court held that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus and that civilians were not subject to military courts, even in times of war.
In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned five of President Franklin Roosevelt’s executive orders (6199, 6204, 6256, 6284, 6855).
In 1952 the Supreme Court also checked presidential power by invalidating the executive order issued in The Steel Seizure Case (Executive Order 10340). In that case President Truman had ordered private steel production facilities seized in support of the Korean War but the Court held the executive order was not within the power granted to the President by the Constitution.
Executive Order 12954, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1995, attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll; a federal appeals court subsequently ruled that the order conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act, and invalidated the order.
Obama had three of his Executive Orders blocked by the courts.
What is your point here in answer to my point that ANY federal branch must act in accordance with the Constitution?
OK, but I’m not sure of your point here in answer to my point that any and every federal branch must act in accordance with the Constitution, including the decisions of any federal court.
I agree with your second paragraph which is why I’m developing my site https://sonsofconstitutionalliberty.com/ devoted largely to educating the average Joe about how to understand the Constitution in a relatively easy way.
As far as your first paragraph, my point isn’t about SCOTUS’ or a federal court’s jurisdiction but in the constitutionality of said courts’ decision(s). Here, a federal court has invalidly issued a TRO overriding the constitutional requirement that the feds protect the U.S. from invasion (Art IV, Sc 4) in the which the Constitution provides NO prohibition of discrimination in that protection from invasion. (In fact, nowhere does the Constitution prohibit discrimination except for black citizens in state and federal laws (14A)).
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.