Vanity: Can the president ignore the court and continue with his valid executive order?

February 9, 2017 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Vanity Discussion Question: Can the president ignore the court order and continue with his valid executive order?

It appears the president is acting in accordance to his constitutional powers and specifically in accordance to laws regarding immigration and has been challenged and overridden by an unconstitutionally political activist (liberal) court.

If so, can he can he continue with his valid orders controlling the actions of the executive branch? No doubt this would set up a "constitutional crisis" but this is going to happen soon anyway as it's the only way we will ever restore constitutional government, ie, the liberal activist courts will have to be toppled eventually. Why not now while we have a strong president and Republican majorities in both housees of congress?

Just askin'.

[Nuc 1.1]

Of course he can. Judges aren’t tyrants they just act that way b/c we the people let them.

[faithhopecharity]

yes he certainly may do just that, Jim
the constitution and statutory law being so crystal clear...

just be ready for the DNC/SorozNazis/IslamoNazi-CAIR MB and MSA to all scream “constitutional crisis”....is all

i think they’ve forced his hand tho, as keeping the door so wide open to even more Islamic terrorists flooding into USA cities and towns.............is dangerous and untenable

I think the leftist cabal has forced DJT to issue anpother order slamming the MoslemTerrorists-Are-Welcome door much harder in the SHUT position

imho

and let the chips fall where they may

[Hardastarboard]

What I don't get is how two courts of law could rule against what is plainly stated in the law. When the courts refuse to enforce the law as plainly written and commonly observed, what stops a judge from declaring the election null and void, which a lot of liberals were screaming for, or even declaring himself the President until a new election can be held?

Certainly not the law, since these black robed dictators clearly think they ARE the law. This has to stop, period.

[Jim W N]

This ruling is in direct contravention to the Constitutional requirement that, “The United States…shall protect each of [the states] against Invasion” (Article IV, Section 4) which should have trumped the TRO (illegal and potentially dangerous immigration is invasion). I think trump could give notice why these proceedings are an unconstitutional block on constitutional necessary and proper federal action and ignore the ruling and block the immigrants.

The case in the Robart court in Washington wasn’t a good faith challenge to the merits of Trump’s EO but a move to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) which was issued in bad faith IMO since no irreparable harm was shown to validate a TRO. It’s a TRO//restraining order hearing where they’re arguing the merits of the EO instead of proving the need for a TRO/restraining order and they have failed to do so as I see it. Freaking Leftist courts.

The U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12 statue appears to be contradictory because of U.S.C. 1152 (a)(1)(a) (anti-discrimination clause) which is being used in these challenges. Congress needs to clean that up.

Nevertheless, Article IV, Section 4 absolutely trumps the valid or invalid TRO/restraining order.

Constitutional crisis? We’ve had that for decades - time to bring it to light.

[TADSLOS]

Agreed. Declare an imminent threat to US National Security (TRUE) and shut it ALL down.

[Kalamata]

Showdown at the O.K. Corral.

I don’t see why we have to put up with all this blatant treason any longer. They will never back down, and neither will the patriots.

I’m glad we have President Trump, AG Sessions, and a whole lot of military generals on our side!

[TigerClaws]

The U.S. government could be found in contempt of court.

Ultimately what you say is true, but it’d create a Constitutional crisis between the branches and likely be viewed negatively.

The MSM would be all over it and it’s unnecessary.

Trump is going to have the majority and soon super majority of the SCOTUS on his side.

See my Vanity from the other say anticipating this ruling and how it fits Trump’s plan:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3522806/posts

It’s being called a ‘defeat for the White House’ by ABC,etc.

It’s actually setting up Trump to appoint more conservatives to the bench at every level and particularly in the seat currently occupied by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

[novemberslady]

Not without provoking a constitutional crisis

There is already right now a constitutional crisis.

These judges have committed an act of treason and attempted to overthrow the American government.

[faithhopecharity]

how to remove a federal judge (with impeachment):

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

[Blue Collar Christian]

No, he’s not a Democrat.

[silverleaf]

Well, if this had happened to Obama, that’s what he would have done

[LeoWindhorse]

and Lib AG’s

the system has been infiltrated by Islamo apologists and
socialist/ commie sympathizers , from stem to stern

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Yes. Source: Mark Levin

[Nuc 1.1]

The four-four split will let the marxists really harm America. They intend to stop the southern wall. Mark my words.

[ETL]

What's with all of these dopey "vanities"!!
Where are the moderators??

...never mind

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Judiciary has no authority to override the president’s authority. That’s called separation of powers.

So when the courts struck down Obama's illegal DACA Executive Order, that was unconstitutional?

And they don’t have the authority to decide cases involving non U.S. citizens.

Article III, section 2 of the Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving "foreign states, citizens or subjects."

[Snickering Hound]

The "It was ok to you when he did it" card.

Play it.

[Read Write Repeat]

In a case where the judges are illiterate, he sure can.

[P-Marlowe]

Jim if anyone from the White House monitors this site, I would recommend that Donald Trump just withdraw the order and then issue a new one. That would kill the current case and force the Snowflakes to seek a new restraining order elsewhere. Then if it is challenged he can withdraw it and issue a new one.

Don’t appeal any of these orders until Gorsuch is sworn in.

[arrogantsob]

yes he can. However, I would not proceed in the legal system until Gorsuch is seated then appeal the 9th decision.

He could change a word or two and promulgate another EO and have it challenged in a conservative federal district court.