Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Judicial Activism Over-rules President Trump's Executive Orders On Travel Bans?

After a resubmitted executive order from President Trump was issued, 

still dealing with a travel ban from known high risk nations for which a national security interest is definitely needing better vetting and the implementation of case by case intensified vetting procedures of those immigrating or traveling from them, an activist Judge in Hawaii 
(after being visited by Obama in Hawaii )

Hawaii District Judge Derrick K. Watson has usurped powers he does not even have and issued a demand that the whole United States Government has to bow to his incompetent and corrupt ruling of the basis of three main themes of justifying his claim of being able to overturn the travel ban from SYRIA (and 5 other high risk nations) in President Trump's second Executive Travel Ban Order listed: 


-- 1) Because the Executive Order Part II made a de jure Domestic Terrorism Advocate    

"feel sad."
       That was reason number 1, the travel ban dared make 
an Imam of the Muslim Brotherhood (which group teaches that mosques are to be base camps for domestic terror campaigns upon the United States),  "feel sad" and that causes him an alleged first amendment irreparable harm?

-- 2) Because 23 people in the University of Hawaii system from students to faculty are from 6 affected travel ban nations;   [like "big whoop!"]  

-- and 3) because tourists from 6 Muslim countries, even if a handful a year, would be an undue burden of economic stress by inference, like Hawaii could NOT somehow withstand a loss of NOT  having 348 visitors from all 6 of those countries spend what, $140,000 out of $15,000,000,000 on its local economy.  Someone dramatically wring a wet handkerchief and moan  “Pooh, pooh;”

because of these points, “poof” those suing have a “poof” right to veto any national security concerns the United States may have?  Uh huh, that’s about what he claims.      

In the past, the Muslim Brotherhood acted in an advisory and tutorial role for Osama Bin Laden.

The Muslim Brotherhood also had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed FIRST as its member, before he joined Al Qaeda and was credited for planning the 09/11/2001 airplane attacks on the World Trade Center twin towers, and at least the Pentagon.

One of Al Qaeda’s various leaders, Ayman al Zawahiri, was also first a member of the Muslim Brotherhood before he was Al Qaeda.

It was the leader of Al Qaeda in Egypt, Muhammad al-Zawahiri, who announced on July 2 of 2013 that his organization would so wage a campaign of Jihad against those who were at the time ousting Morsi, declaring an open alliance between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hawaii District Judge Derrick K. Watson should be disbarred and kicked out of Law Practice altogether. 

 Judge Jeanine Pirro  comments on Foxnews Channel in the video below.

Understand this:  The same group to which the Hawaii Muslim Brotherhood Imam belongs, in multiple nations of the Middle East has allied with Al Qaeda and ISIS, has openly advocated cannibalism as long as they are those who believe in any way differently from them,

"We are allowed the eating of flesh of dead humans under necessary conditions. It must not be cooked or grilled to avoid doing wrong. And, he can kill a murtadd [an apostate, that includes Christians and Jews] and eat him. "

-- Al-Azhar al-Sharif, Azhari Colleges Section, Central Administration for Books, Libraries, and Teaching Aides for 3rd Year High School in Egypt, page 256.

 has in the United States of America published and called for mosques to be base camps of operations to wage wars of terrorism in both planning and logistics (arms and other supplies) against the Republic of the United States of America as a hostile alien invasion force. 

See Pages 21 and 25 

Page 21:
"4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means.

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal."

Page 25: 
"In brief we say: we would like for the Islamic center to become "The House of Dawa"' and "the general center" in deeds first before name. As much as we own and direct these centers at the continent level, we can say we are marching successfully towards the settlement of Dawa' in this country.

Meaning that the "center's" role should be the same as the "mosque's" role during the time of [Mohammed] Allah's prophet, Allah's prayers and peace be upon him, when he marched to "settle" the Dawa' in its first generation in Madina. From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew [as Islam].

This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into "operations rooms" for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed

[for the eventual subjugation and taking over the nation for Islam]." 

On March 15, 2017, in regard to the 3 Judge Panel of the 9th Circuit that overstepped their bounds, 
 Circuit Judge Jay Bybee of Las Vegas,
 one of 44   9th Circuit Judges,    
was joined by Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski of Pasadena, 
Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan of Sacramento,
Circuit Judge Carlos Bea of San Francisco, 
and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta of Pasadena 
in making a dissent that was published on March 15, 2017, at: 

I include the highlights that most readers will likely readily understand, which in essence still gives the reader the basic understanding of why President Trump's first travel ban was still legal and would have been upheld if emergency injunction challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have been forced to hear arguments in a matter of days, usually as little as less than a week.

-- Key to dissent quotes
 [Bybee Dissent Text in yellow
  Bybee footnotes in red
   My one sentence comment assist in green]  

“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty.” United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950); see also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). 

Congress has the principal power to control the nation’s borders, a power that follows naturally from its power “[t]o establish an uniform rule of Naturalization,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and from its authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” id. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and to “declare War,” id. art. I, § 8, cl. 11. See Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 414 (2003); 

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–89 (1952)

 (“[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations [and] the war power . . . .”).

...The foreign policy powers of the presidency derive from the President’s role as “Commander in Chief,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1, 

his right to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers,” id.
art. II, § 3, and his general duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” id. See Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 414.

 The “power of exclusion of aliens is also inherent in the executive.” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543.

In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Congress exercised its authority to prescribe the terms on which aliens may be admitted to the United States, the conditions on which they may remain within our borders, and the requirements for becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.

Congress also delegated authority to the President to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” as he deems appropriate:

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
any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants,
impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.   Id. § 1182(f). 

Many presidents have invoked the authority of § 1182(f) to bar the

entry of broad classes of aliens from identified countries.2

See, e.g., 
Exec. Order No. 12324 (Sept. 29, 1981) (Reagan and Haiti);
Proclamation No. 5517 (Aug. 22, 1986) (Reagan and Cuba); 
Exec. Order No. 12807 (May 24, 1992) (George H.W. Bush and Haiti); 
Proclamation No. 6958 (Nov. 22, 1996) (Clinton and Sudan); Proclamation No. 7359 (Oct. 10, 2000) (Clinton and Sierra Leone); 
Exec. Order No. 13276 (Nov. 15, 2002) (George W. Bush and Haiti); 
Exec. Order No. 13692 (Mar. 8, 2015) (Obama and Venezuela);
Exec. Order No. 13726 (Apr. 19, 2016) (Obama and Libya).

In Executive Order No. 13769, the President exercised the authority granted in § 1182(f). Exec. Order No. 13769 § 3(c) (Jan. 27, 2017), revoked by Exec. Order No. 13780 § 1(i) (Mar. 6, 2017). 

The Executive Order covered a number of subjects. Three provisions were particularly relevant to this litigation. 

First, the Executive Order found that “the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from [seven] countries . . . would be detrimental to the interests of the United States” and ordered the suspension of entry for nationals (with certain exceptions) from those countries for 90 days. Id. 

The seven countries were Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. 

Second, it directed the Secretary of State to suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. 

However, exceptions could be made “on a case-by-case basis” in the discretion of the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security. 

Once USRAP resumed, the Secretary of State was “to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual
[was] a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” Id. § 5(a), (b), (e). 

Third, it suspended indefinitely the entry of Syrian refugees. Id. § 5(c).

... It is indeed an “uncontroversial principle” that courts must defer to the political judgment of the President and Congress in matters of immigration policy. 

The Supreme Court has said so, plainly and often. See, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 (1976)

 (“[T]he responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government.”); 

Harisiades, 342 U.S. at 590

 (“[N]othing in the structure of our Government or the text of our Constitution would warrant judicial review by standards which would require us to equate our political judgment with   that of Congress.”); 

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210

(“Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”); 
Henderson v. Mayor of N.Y., 92 U.S. (2 Otto) 259, 270–71 (1876).

 On the other hand, it seems equally fundamental that the judicial branch is a critical backstop to defend the rights of individuals against the excesses of the political branches. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 941 (1983) (reviewing Congress’s use of power over aliens to ensure that “the exercise of that authority does not offend some other constitutional restriction” (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 132 (1976))).

The Supreme Court has given us a way to analyze these knotty questions, but it depends on our ability to distinguish between 

two groups of aliens: 
those who are present within our borders
and those who are seeking admission.

As the Court explained in Leng May Ma v. Barber,

It is important to note at the outset that our immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have 
come to our shores seeking admission, 
. . . and those who are within the United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality. 
In the latter instance the Court has recognized additional rights and privileges not extended to those in the former category who are merely “on the threshold of initial entry.” 
357 U.S. 185, 187 (1958) (quoting Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212). 

The panel did not recognize that critical distinction and it led to manifest error. The panel’s decision is not only inconsistent with clear Supreme Court authority, but the panel missed a whole bunch of our own decisions as well.

...After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Attorney General instituted the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. 

That program required non-immigrant alien males (residing in the United States) over the age of sixteen from twenty-five countries—twenty-four Muslim majority countries plus North Korea—to appear for registration and fingerprinting. 

One court referred to the program as “enhanced monitoring.” See Rajah v. 
Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 433–34, 439 (2d Cir. 2008) (describing the program).7


 The aliens subject to the program were designated by country in a series of notices. 
The first notice covered five countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. See Rajah, 544 F.3d at 433 n.3.

The aliens subject to the program filed a series of suits in federal courts across the  United States. They contended that the program unconstitutionally discriminated against them on the basis of “their religion, ethnicity, gender, and race.” Id. at 438.

Similar to the claims here, the petitioners argued that the program “was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims.” Id. at 439.

Citing Fiallo and applying the Mandel test, the Second Circuit held that “[t]he most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review.” Id. at 438 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 

The court then found “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for” the registration requirements because the countries were “selected on the basis of national security criteria.” Id. at 438–39. 

The court rejected as having “no basis” the petitioners’ claim of religious animus. Id. at 439. 

The court observed that “one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups.” Id. 

It added:

Muslims from non-specified countries were not subject to registration.
Aliens from the designated countries who were qualified to be
permanent residents in the United States were exempted whether or
not they were Muslims. 
The program did not target only Muslims: non-Muslims from the designated countries were subject to registration.

The Second Circuit thus unanimously rejected the petitioners’ constitutional challenges and “join[ed] every circuit that ha[d] considered the issue in concluding that the Program [did] not violate Equal Protection guarantees.” Id.; see Malik v. Gonzales, 213 F. App’x 173, 174–75 (4th Cir. 2007); Kandamar v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65, 72–74 (1st Cir. 2006); Zafar v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006); Hadayat v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 659, 664–65 (7th Cir. 2006); Shaybob v. Attorney Gen., 189 F. App’x 127, 130 (3d Cir. 2006); Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 439 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Adenwala v. Holder, 341 F. App’x 307, 309 (9th Cir. 2009); Roudnahal v. Ridge, 310 F. Supp. 2d 884, 892 (N.D. Ohio 2003).

The [3 Judge] panel  [of the 9th Circuit Court] was oblivious to this important history. 

...So long as there is one “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end. 

As the Court explained in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999):
The Executive should not have to disclose its “real” reasons for deeming nationals of a particular country a special threat—or indeed for simply wishing to antagonize a particular foreign country by focusing on that country’s nationals—and even it if did disclose them
a court would be ill equipped to determine their authenticity and utterly unable to assess their adequacy.

Id. at 491; see Mezei, 345 U.S. at 210–12; Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543. 

...We are judges, not Platonic Guardians.

 It is our duty to say what the law is, and the meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign policy, including the decisions to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to the President and Congress. 

We will yet regret not having taken this case en banc 
to keep those lines of authority straight. "

-- BYBEE, Circuit Judge

It is a very understandable concept that should be shared everywhere, that an authorized and Constitutionally empowered President of the United States is empowered by Congress and the United States Constitution to be able to travel ban any ALIENS from entry into the United States. 

 At issue (at present) in the Hawaii challenge to Travel ban II, is a Domestic terrorist Organization Imam who is from Egypt, by the very words of what the Muslim Brotherhood has published what it intends to do clearly lied in his naturalization oath, moved to Hawaii 10 years ago, and wants to bring his alien foreign national Syrian mother-in-law into the United States WITHOUT vetting.   

The United States Constitution states in Article 4, Section 4 that:

"The United States shall guarantee to every 

State in this Union a Republican Form of 

Government, and shall protect each of them 

against Invasion"

and Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States clearly states that

and the Judges in every State 

shall be bound thereby, 

any Thing in the Constitution."

Even as the judiciary cannot rule that States have no right to a Republican Form of Government as stated by the Constitution, so too do judges who act beyond their Constitutional authority have no Constitutional authority to prohibit a clear mandate exclusive to the President to prohibit invasion of the States (or to in any way impose restrictions) to those aliens, which is reaffirmed in United States Federal Law by statute:

"8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
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 *** impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate...."

Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden, 112 U.S. 261 (1884) @261
“That construction of a statute should be adopted which, without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used, brings it into harmony with the Constitution.”

Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895) @657
“The elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”

Clearly, President Trump is not dealing with an unconstitutional statute, and is affirming what the Constitution requires of him, that he NOT be derelict in his duties to protect, preserve / enforce, defend the Constitution and the provisions and language thereof, et cetera.

The United States Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 states:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It is the duty of the President to challenge any unconstitutional authority by the Courts or anyone else that contradicts a CLEAR and spelled out mandate of the Supreme Law of the Land, and to exercise that Presidential Power authorized him by the United States Constitution.

Judges like Judge A-S-S-H-O-L-E in Hawaii and those of the 3 Judge panel of the 9th Circuit are intentionally seeking to legislate from the bench and usurp the power of Congress as well as usurp the specific power granted alone to the President of the United States. 

In effect, by usurpation of power of the Executive as well as the Legislative Branch in order to aid aliens to INVADE the United States, the judges violate federal law and commit felonies that range from 5 years to life: 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens @ (II)(B)(ii).

At the Supreme Court level, clearly just a basic historical review of some of the same cases they will cite in their own opinions will weigh them to have to favor President Trump, and if no other case citation is needed, watch for In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891) page 464 as a "go to" primary citation to rule in favor of Trump using the mechanical interpretation of the law. 

In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891) @464
By the Constitution, a government is ordained and established "for the United States of America," and not for countries outside of their limits.

"...The Constitution can have no 

operation in another country.

When, therefore, the representatives or officers of our government are permitted to exercise authority of any kind in another country, it must be on such conditions as the two countries may agree, the laws of neither one being obligatory upon the other. The deck of a private American vessel, it is true, is considered, for many purposes, constructively as territory of the United States; yet persons on board of such vessels, whether officers, sailors, or passengers, cannot invoke the protection of the provisions referred to until brought within the actual territorial boundaries of the United States.”

But also watch for these others to be cited or referenced as well.

The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) @ 607,609

@ 607
"In a communication in September, 1869, to Mr. Washburne, our minister to France, Mr. Fish, Secretary of State under President Grant, uses this language:
"The control of the people within its limits, and the right to expel from its territory persons who are dangerous to the peace of the state, are too clearly within the essential attributes of sovereignty to be seriously contested. Strangers visiting or sojourning in a foreign country voluntarily submit themselves to its laws and customs, and the municipal laws of France, authorizing the expulsion of strangers, are not of such recent date, nor has the exercise of the power by the government of France been so infrequent, that sojourners within her territory can claim surprise when the power is put in force."

The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the Constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of anyone.

The powers of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered.

Nor can their exercise be hampered, 

when needed for the public good, by 

any considerations of private interest.

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 
142 U.S. 651 (1892)@659,660 


It is an accepted maxim of 

international law that every sovereign 

nation has the power, as inherent in 

sovereignty and essential to self-

preservation, to forbid the entrance of 

foreigners within its dominions or to 

admit them only in such cases and 

upon such conditions as it may see fit 

to prescribe. 

Vattel, lib. 2, §§ 94, 100; 1 Phillimore (3d ed.) c. 10, § 220.

In the United States, this power is 

vested in the national government, to

 which the Constitution has committed

 the entire control of international 

relations, in peace as well as in war.

 It belongs to the political department 

of the government

It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law shall be permitted to enter in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. 

As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law. Murray v. Hoboken Co., 18 How. 272; Hilton v. Merritt, 110 U. S. 97.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) @ 713,707-708

@ 713
The power to exclude or to expel aliens, being a power affecting international relations, is vested in the political departments of the Government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far the Judicial Department has been authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the paramount law of the Constitution, to intervene.

@ 707
…Vattel says

"Every nation has the right to refuse to admit 

a foreigner into the country, when he cannot

 enter without putting the nation in evident 

danger, or doing it a manifest injury. What it 

owes to itself, the care of its own safety, gives 

it this right; and, in virtue of its natural 

liberty, it belongs to the nation to judge 

whether its circumstances will or will not 

justify the admission of the foreigner. . . . 

Thus, also, it has a right to send them 

elsewhere, if it has just cause to

Page 149 U. S. 708

fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates."
Vatt. Law Nat. lib. 1, c. 19, §§ 230, 231.

No comments:

Post a Comment