Travel ban judicial overreach attacks the Constitution as much as it attacks Trump

Travel ban judicial overreach attacks the Constitution as much as it attacks Trump

Let’s make one thing clear up front: regardless of whether you agree with Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority nations or not, the real issue here is whether or not he’s allowed to do so. He is. The Constitution is unambiguous about the powers of the executive branch as it pertains to foreign policy.

I’ve been critical about elements of the travel ban. I’ve also been in favor of reining in the powers that the executive branch has accumulated over the last century. What supersedes both of these perspectives is that the Constitution is the key to our form of government. What the 9th circuit court of appeals has done directly contradicts what the Constitution intended for the executive branch. What makes it worse is they did so by invoking the Constitution itself.

Now, let’s talk about the real kick in the groin. Those in the legal profession are aware that style often holds as much weight as substance. This should absolutely not be the case when it comes to the Constitution. That the Trump administration failed to offer a compelling case is not grounds to usurp the very plain language of the Constitution itself. In fact, the original ruling should have been overturned even if the government decided not to make a case at all. One has to go through a series of complicated intellectual acrobatic routines in order to come to the conclusion that restraining the ban is in any way constitutional. The court’s justification: bad lawyering by Trump’s team:

There’s a reason that the courts were not given the power to bypass the Constitution. Amendments must come through the legislative branch or the states, not the judicial or executive branches. Politics were allowed to creep into the one branch that should be devoid of politics. This is extremely dangerous as both an action and a precedent.

The public and media will see this as an attack on Trump. It is, but that alone is acceptable as long as it’s done within the confines of the law. What’s troubling is that this is an attack on the Constitution itself. If it can be called into question with this case, where do the questions stop? What else can the court change in the way constitutional powers are exercised?

The Supreme Court must reverse this decision. It’s a no-brainer. It should be 8-0 (or 9-0 if Neil Gorsuch gets confirmed in time) in favor of the ban because of the absolute clarity of the Constitution on this matter. We’ll soon see whether politics holds more sway over the judiciary than the Constitution they’re sworn to protect.

Conservative News

JD Rucker

JD Rucker is Editor of this site as well as Soshable, a Conservative Christian Blog. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, and founder of both Judeo Christian Church and Dealer Authority. He drinks a lot of coffee, usually in the form of a 5-shot espresso over ice. Find him on Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest.

3 Comments
  1. You say the court’s ruling is unconstitutional, but you do not explain why. All you did is parrot the Trump talking points from Fox News.

    When I read the 14th Amendment, it talks about “persons” having rights to liberty (among other rights) – not “citizens”. Yes, Trump has authority to temporarily limit immigration, but his EO was NOT limited to “immigrants”. It included permanent residents and visa holders that have established residency in the US. This is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION on their liberty.

    By including non-immigrants in his ban, Trump’s EO became illegal. Why did you not address this point ?

    Why did not you not address the point that the Judiciary has as much right to review Trump’s EOs as they do Congressional laws like Obamacare ?

    Do you really think that Trump’s EO is NOT subject to judicial scrutiny ? If so, please explain how Congress (whose laws ARE subject to judicial review/invalidation) can delegate some of their authority to Trump and (in the process) empower Trump’s EOs with immunity to judicial scrutiny.

    It’s well known that the 9th circuit is liberal and frequently overturned on appeal, but you apparently made a knee-jerk response that the 9th Circuit is wrong IN THIS CASE because “Trump said so”.

    The flip side of the coin is even MORE dangerous to our Republic: that is a President that oversteps his authority, writes unconstitutional EOs to bypass Congress, then not only ignores the courts that declare his overstepping his authority to be illegal and issue a TRO, but actively engages in a public campaign to undermine the authority and credibility of the courts – a campaign that YOU are assisting him with.

    As a Federalist, I find your biased article to be without analysis, and little more than repetition of WH talking points that fail even the most basic research and scrutiny. (Nowhere in the text of the US Constitution does it say that individual freedom from government restrictions on liberty are restricted to US Citizens. Nowhere does it state that the government has the authority to restrict travel of citizens as the 14th SPECIFICALLY prohibits government from restricting the liberty of “persons” – including those non-Citizens that reside in the US (as did the slaves that were the target of the 14th Amendment).

    When Trump’s EO violates the rights of US residents, he should be called out for his actions – not the courts (no matter HOW liberal the courts may be on other issues or HOW often they get overturned).

Leave a Reply

© 2017 The New Americana