The judicial assault against the updated version of Trump's Travel Ban has begun. The new ban only covers six countries, removing Iraq from the list of the first ban; and the new extreme vetting order has exceptions for current visa and green card holders.
Conley issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement against the family.
The order doesn't block the entire travel ban.
It simply prevents Trump's administration from enforcing it against this family pending a March 21 hearing.
I was at a meeting with a large number of Hispanic, black and white church leaders in San Diego on Friday Morning to discuss my work getting civics and Constitution education into inner-cities. After the meeting a couple asked me about the ban. Their question was encouraged by a statement I made about being a part of the Murrieta Immigration Protests in 2014.
The wife asked me, “Doesn't it bother you that Trump issued a blanket ban when there are families that truly do want to come to the United States because of the war-torn place they are coming from?”
“I agree with the ban, and I wish it went further,” I replied. ”Even though there are allegedly good people among the Muslim groups trying to come to the West as refugees, mixed into that population are bad people. During World War II we banned people from Japan, Italy and Germany – the countries we were at war with – not because we were trying to be racist, or insensitive, but because we couldn't tell the good from the bad.”
She was not convinced.
I continued. ”If you had a bowl of candies and you knew that three of them were poison and would kill you if eaten, would you grab a handful and eat them? No. You'd want to remove those candies so as to ensure you can eat the good ones without any danger of harm.”
That is what Trump's orders are about.
As for the court's assaulting his executive orders, I heard today on television a clip of a man saying, “It's not the President's job to decide if an order is valid, that's the job of the courts.”
No, it's not.
We've been so convinced of the supremacy of the courts, we actually believe that kind of garbage. The fact is, their job is to hear cases that meet the criteria provided in Article III of the United States Constitution, and they can issue opinions if they believe things are outside constitutional bounds or are unjust. However, it is not their job to strike down a perfectly constitutional order because they want to throw around their ideological narrative.
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution has given Congress full authority to prohibit anyone they please. Based on that authority, Congress, long ago, passed a law allowing the President to prohibit persons he believes to be a national security risk. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States. Section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), Section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), Section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, and Sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351.
End of argument.
The leftist assault is unconstitutional, and is politically driven. It has nothing to do with the law, or the Constitution, and everything to do with their temper tantrum resulting from the fact that they didn't get their way last November. Meanwhile, reports show a need for extreme vetting. The actions of the Democrat Party minions in federal court judicial positions are a threat to our national security.
– Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary