Here is the law of the land since the 1950s. It was written by Congress and signed by President Eisenhower. It reads as follows: “Suspension of Entry or Imposition of Restrictions by President: 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 or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Quite simply, with no ambiguity, the president of the United States, according to United States law, and reaffirmed as late as 2013 by the Supreme Court, has sole and total power over who does and who does not get into this country for as long as he may deem necessary when such entry would be judged by him to be detrimental to the interests of the United States. That is the law!
I can hear you asking yourselves, “Why would Congress give the president this much power over immigrant and refugee entry to the country?” Here is where I earn my paycheck. A history lesson: It starts with a Supreme Court decision in 1948, Chicago & Southern Airlines v. Waterman, and Justice Robert Jackson (source: a column by Andy McCarthy of the National Review).
Who was he? He was Roosevelt’s former attorney general, and he was the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg. Justice Robert Jackson explained in this Supreme Court case that “decisions involving foreign policy, including alien threats to national security, are political, not judicial in nature.” Continuing, “Thus, they are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, executive and legislative. They are delicate, complex and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.”
Justice Jackson continued: “They are decisions of a kind for which the judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility, and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power, not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.”
What he was saying, again without ambiguity, is that the judiciary is not equipped, prepared, structured, or competent to determine national security questions. Why, you may ask? The biggest reason is they do not get intelligence briefings. There is no daily brief for the Supreme Court. Like us, all they know is what they read or see or hear in the news. So after that ruling, Congress wrote the 1952 law: They took the Supreme Court ruling and codified it and made it statute law.
So what we now have here is a judge in Seattle and three judges at the 9th Circuit who went looking for precedent, for legal backing, The United States Supreme Court—and because of a ruling that is still active today, backed up by a 1952 statute—did what the law says they cannot do. Which is why, if you’ve read any of their rulings, they do not rule on the law. They ruled on their beliefs. They legislated.
For all the talk from talking heads and the likes of Sen. McCain about Trump beginning to act like a tyrant, the real tyranny is coming from a judge in Seattle and the 9th Circuit. When one looks at the legal history of this whole concept, if there is a tyranny going on here, if there is anybody operating outside the law, it is a judge in Seattle and the 9th Circuit.
Whatever Trump said as a candidate, whatever Trump said as a nominee was not relevant. It did not matter. The judges had no jurisdiction to rule on this matter. They should have tossed this out, saying the states had no standing. What the Democrats and the judges are counting on is that you, the citizen, are too lazy to know what the actual law says and the history behind it. Except, now you know.
This is what I say. What say you?
The opinions expressed herein are the writer's alone, and do not reflect the opinions of TAPinto.net or anyone who works for TAPinto.net. TAPinto.net is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the writer.