The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
The President and Immigration
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
Trump Delivers on Supreme Court Nomination
By John J. Bastiat: Donald Trump promised during his campaign for the presidency to nominate a constitutional conservative to the Supreme Court, and he did not disappoint. With the selection of Judge Neil Gorsuch, currently serving on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Trump delivered on yet another campaign promise. This fulfillment was particularly important for millions of conservative voters, as it was the deciding factor in their decision to pull the handle for Mr. Trump over his opponent. (What was her name again?)
Judge Gorsuch's credentials are impressive by any standard: top undergraduate honors at Columbia, top law school honors at Harvard, top PhD honors at Oxford, and an unwavering history of originalist constitutional interpretations that would make the late, great jurist Antonin "Nino" Scalia proud. Gorsuch beat out a strong list of fellow contenders Mr. Trump had paraded before the public during his campaign for the White House, with the promise he would choose his nominee from among that list. And he did.
What does this nomination mean for America's future? For starters, an immediate uphill battle. Within literally seconds after the president's announcement, the statist juggernaut launched into full swing, with the usual suspects in the Senate immediately pulling the gloves off and lining up to deliver blows.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) soap-boxed that Democrats would oppose nominees who were not "bipartisan and mainstream." Meanwhile, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) hissed lines from his dog-eared copy of the playbook: "I had hoped that President Trump would work in a bipartisan way to pick a mainstream nominee like Merrick Garland and bring the country together. Instead, he outsourced this process to far-Right interest groups. This is no way to treat a co-equal branch of government or to protect the independence of our federal judiciary."
From this mummy's wisdom, of course, we learn two pearls: 1) A judge who reads the plain language of the Constitution and interprets it accordingly is a choice of the "far-Right interest groups," not the American public, who would rather see "living, breathing Constitution" patsies contort the law to whatever suits the Left; and 2) In the wake of their abject Election Day spanking, the Democrat leadership's "new" course is to continue spewing the same bile and venom that helped its candidates so much back in November. How excitingly new and refreshing! Hey Dems, keep it up: America needs you to abandon even more seats in the midterms!
Since Schumer has pledged that Democrats will filibuster any Trump nominee of whom he does not approve, many have questioned if the only option available for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would be to invoke the "nuclear option." There are other prescriptions for breaking the filibuster, including utilization of existing rules as proposed by our colleagues at The Heritage Foundation: "A majority may use Rule XIX (the two-speech rule) to shorten the amount of time members are able to filibuster. This rule prohibits any senator from giving more than two speeches on any one question during the same legislative day." It is important to note that a "legislative day" is not confined to a 24-hour period but to whenever the Senate adjourns, which could potentially last for months, as it did in 1980. After all, senators have given their speeches — they may not speak again — and confirmation can be obtained by a simple majority vote.
Republicans could also load the Senate docket with legislative proposals, which, if delayed by filibuster, could wound Senate Democrats in their home states.
However confirmation is achieved, a Justice Gorsuch means an end to the 4-4 split, an end to ideologically driven deadlocks arising in the wake of Justice Scalia's departure and a return to juridical sanity on the High Court. Judge Gorsuch referred to Scalia as "a lion of the law," also noting how much he misses him. He should: He has big shoes to fill. We are very optimistic, however. Echoing the same judicial philosophy and disarming manner as Nino consistently used with great impact, in accepting his nomination Judge Gorsuch humbly remarked, "A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge." The implication is one all constitutionalists should understand: The outcome follows the law, not vice versa. And in this regard, Judge Gorsuch has been a reliably solid judge over a host of decisions before the Tenth Circuit, most notably in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. There the court struck down contraceptive mandates under liar-nObamaCare — mandates that would have otherwise violated the religious free exercise rights of Hobby Lobby's owners in lieu of the "rights" of its employees to have employer-funded contraceptives. The decision is one of many similar examples demonstrating to us that Judge Gorsuch gets it.
Conservatives across the nation are unified in declaring this selection an unequivocal win, because it's a victory for Rule of Law. As Mark Alexander notes, "Despite how the Democrats and their Leftmedia echo chamber want to frame this issue, it is NOT a 'Republican versus Democrat' or 'conservative versus liberal' issue. This is a Rule of Law versus a rule of men issue. Our Founders and Constitution prescribed that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold Rule of Law in accordance with their oaths 'to Support and Defend' our Constitution, not legislate by judicial dictate as has been the case by statist jurists on the court for the last 70 years."
As Thomas Jefferson warned on judicial despotism, "[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Indeed, President Trump continues building an administration that is tantamount to a Reagan revival. With this critical nomination, it's now up to the Senate to hit this one over the wall. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Enemy to get 'named' under Trump's DHS
by Art Moore
{wnd.com} ~ President liar-nObama’s refusal to associate Islam with the prime terror threat the Western world faces manifest itself in his Department of Homeland Security’s program called Countering Violent Extremism... The euphemistic name underscored the administration’s premise that white supremacists and other fringe movements are just as much a threat to the nation’s security as people who carry out violent attacks in America and around the world in the name of Allah. Now, according to five sources briefed on the matter who spoke to Reuters, the Trump administration is about to make good on its promise to “name the enemy” with a plan to change the name of the program to “Countering Islamic Extremism” or “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism.”...This should set heads spinning at CAIR. http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/enemy-to-get-named-under-trumps-dhs/
.
Chaffetz, Cummings Fight Over
Russia at House Hearing
by Mary Chastain
{legalinsurrection.com} ~ House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings (MD) erupted into a fight at a hearing on Thursday over possible Russian interference in our election... The fight started when the two sides discussed a possible Oversight investigation into the phishing schemes against the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Democrats argued it must happen: “The chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), argued that studying sources and methods used to draw an intelligence conclusion is the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee and, further, that it would be “inappropriate” for Oversight to “dive into the private systems of a political party.”... http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/02/chaffetz-cummings-fight-over-russia-at-house-hearing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
.
Quebec: The Crisis of the West
by Giulio Meotti
by Giulio Meotti
The Church of Saint-Jude in Montreal is today the
"Saint-Jude spa" for "wellness worshippers
"Saint-Jude spa" for "wellness worshippers
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ Welcome to Quebec, with its flavor of an old French province, with its beautiful landscapes, where streets are named after Catholic saints, and where a gunman just murdered six people in a local mosque... Violence can be the consequence of societal convulsions, as in the 2011 massacre on Norway's island of Utoya, in a country that prided itself of being ultra-secularized, and part of the global "good society". Quebec, also, like the entire West, is facing an existential demographic and religious crisis. George Weigel, writing in the American publication, First Things recently called Quebec "Catholicism's Empty Quarter". "There is no more religiously arid place," he wrote, "between the North Pole and Tierra del Fuego; there may be no more religiously arid place on the planet"... https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9881/quebec-crisis
.
“The Immaculate Corruption”
by Sharyl Attkisson
{sharylattkisson.com} ~ Big banks paid tens of billions of dollars in fines for alleged fraud and misrepresentation after the U.S. mortgage crisis. But not one top banker has been indicted or gone to prison... Some call it The Immaculate Corruption. Sunday on Full Measure, I’ll investigate why the Congressionally-appointed panel convened to look into the crisis sealed its records — and what was in them. A former top Citigroup executive-turned-whistleblower, Richard Bowen, helps us navigate through the paperwork. Back in 2005, I broke the news about a possible link between Viagra and blindness. This week, I speak to the eye doctor who was the first to publicize the issue, Dr. Howard Pomeranz, for an update. I’ll also speak to the architect of the plan to withhold funding from sanctuary cities, Congressman John Culberson... https://sharylattkisson.com/the-immaculate-corruption/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SharylAttkisson+%28Sharyl+Attkisson%29
.
Judge Makes Embarrassing Mistake In His
Ruling On Trump’s Refugee Order
by Kevin Daley
{dailycaller.com} ~ A federal judge in Los Angeles may have goofed his order barring the U.S. government from canceling valid immigration visas in connection with President Donald Trump’s refugee policy... District Judge Andre Birotte of the Central District of California issued an order that forbade federal officials from “removing, detaining, or blocking the entry of Plaintiffs, or any other person from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with a valid immigrant visa.” The wording of his ruling is somewhat off base, and compromises the thrust of his order. A Department of State memorandum issued on Jan. 31 — several days before Birotte’s order — in conjunction with the president’s executive order rescinded all visas held by citizens of countries targeted in the ban. Therefore, there most likely were few, if any, “valid immigrant visas” for Birotte to protect, as all “valid immigrant visas” had been canceled days earlier... http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/02/federal-judge-messes-up-order-on-trumps-immigration-ban/
.
.
The President and Immigration
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ This past weekend, we all saw massive public outrage in major cities throughout the country. It was directed at the Jan. 27 issuance of an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump, addressing immigration. With the executive order, the president ordered the suspension of entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, as well as anyone from Syria for an indefinite period and anyone from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days.
The crowds of protesters, which included members of Congress, called the president a tyrant. The president argued that he was lawfully protecting the country from those who might facilitate terrorist attacks here. Can he legally do this?
Here is the back story.
The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to regulate naturalization, which is the process of becoming an American citizen. It does not expressly give it the power to regulate immigration, which is the process of legally entering the country. From 1776 to 1882, Congress recognized this distinction by staying largely silent on immigration, and thus, anyone could come here from anywhere, with the only real regulation being for public health.
In 1882, Congress gave itself the power to regulate immigration, contending that although the Constitution was silent on the issue, the concept of nationhood gave Congress the ability to regulate the nation's borders and thereby control who was permitted to enter from foreign countries and under what circumstances.
In response to economic competition from Asian immigrants in California -- and in the midst of anti-Asian racial animus -- Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which limited the number of immigrants from China for 10 years. In 1892, Congress extended the law for another 10 years, and in 1902, Congress made the law permanent. In 1924, Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act, which restricted entry into the United States through quotas with respect to national origins. The quotas were capped in 1929, reduced in 1943 and substantially expanded in 1965.
In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly authorized the president to suspend the immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons.
The courts have upheld this presidential power because under our system, immigration materially affects the nation's foreign policy and foreign policy is constitutionally the domain of the president -- with Congress' role being limited to the senatorial confirmation of treaties and ambassadors and to authorization of money for the president to spend. Yet the courts have limited the president's exercise of this power so that he cannot base it on First Amendment-protected liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, religion and association. So he cannot bar an immigrant because of the immigrant's political views, religion or colleagues.
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter exercised this presidential power to bar anyone from Iran from entering the country until the hostage crisis was resolved. In 2011, President Barack liar-nObama used this presidential power to bar anyone from Iraq from entering the country for six months.
Enter President Trump.
As a candidate, Trump promised that he would secure the nation's borders from those whom he deems harmful to national security for limited periods of time -- at least until he and those under him could determine a more accurate mechanism for separating the true refugees from the ones seeking entry for nefarious purposes. On his eighth day in office, he did just that.
The reaction was swift, loud and seemingly everywhere as foreign-born people, many with green cards and visas, were stopped and detained at the nation's international airports last Saturday. Over the weekend, federal judges in New York City, Boston, Virginia and Seattle ruled that Trump's order could not apply to green card holders or those who received valid State Department-issued visas based on the pre-executive order protocol.
To its credit, the government recognized that the language of the executive order needed to be clarified because green card holders, no matter the country of origin, have the same right of exit and entry as citizens. Moreover, the government cannot constitutionally give anyone a benefit -- such as a visa -- and then nullify the benefit because it changed the issuing standards afterward. So the Trump changes can be prospective only.
Where does this leave us?
Expect numerous challenges in Congress and in the courts to Trump's order because, the challengers will argue, though its stated purpose was not to bar a religious group, its effect is largely to bar Muslims. For sure, the courts will address this. The purpose/effect distinction -- which exists in many areas of the law, such as school desegregation, legislative apportionment and voting rights -- has not been accepted by the courts against a president for a temporary immigration ban because the courts have often deferred to presidents on foreign policy.
Is the ban just?
Everyone knows we are a nation of immigrants. Three of my grandparents immigrated here as children. Most people recognize that all people have the natural right to travel, which means they can seek entry here; but the country has accepted the ideas that our borders are not open, that the welfare state here is not without financial limits and that in perilous times such as today, immigration is largely and legally in the hands of the president, whether one has voted for him or not.
Yet like all governmental powers, particularly those that often clash with natural rights when they are exercised, the power to regulate immigration must be exercised narrowly. Many reading this are here because someone left another country for the freedoms that are respected here. Those freedoms are natural to everyone and will always draw people here.
The government can only morally and constitutionally interfere with personal freedom for the most compelling of reasons and utilizing the least restrictive means. Is the government faithful to that well-recognized rule? We shall soon see.
The crowds of protesters, which included members of Congress, called the president a tyrant. The president argued that he was lawfully protecting the country from those who might facilitate terrorist attacks here. Can he legally do this?
Here is the back story.
The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to regulate naturalization, which is the process of becoming an American citizen. It does not expressly give it the power to regulate immigration, which is the process of legally entering the country. From 1776 to 1882, Congress recognized this distinction by staying largely silent on immigration, and thus, anyone could come here from anywhere, with the only real regulation being for public health.
In 1882, Congress gave itself the power to regulate immigration, contending that although the Constitution was silent on the issue, the concept of nationhood gave Congress the ability to regulate the nation's borders and thereby control who was permitted to enter from foreign countries and under what circumstances.
In response to economic competition from Asian immigrants in California -- and in the midst of anti-Asian racial animus -- Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which limited the number of immigrants from China for 10 years. In 1892, Congress extended the law for another 10 years, and in 1902, Congress made the law permanent. In 1924, Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act, which restricted entry into the United States through quotas with respect to national origins. The quotas were capped in 1929, reduced in 1943 and substantially expanded in 1965.
In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly authorized the president to suspend the immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons.
The courts have upheld this presidential power because under our system, immigration materially affects the nation's foreign policy and foreign policy is constitutionally the domain of the president -- with Congress' role being limited to the senatorial confirmation of treaties and ambassadors and to authorization of money for the president to spend. Yet the courts have limited the president's exercise of this power so that he cannot base it on First Amendment-protected liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, religion and association. So he cannot bar an immigrant because of the immigrant's political views, religion or colleagues.
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter exercised this presidential power to bar anyone from Iran from entering the country until the hostage crisis was resolved. In 2011, President Barack liar-nObama used this presidential power to bar anyone from Iraq from entering the country for six months.
Enter President Trump.
As a candidate, Trump promised that he would secure the nation's borders from those whom he deems harmful to national security for limited periods of time -- at least until he and those under him could determine a more accurate mechanism for separating the true refugees from the ones seeking entry for nefarious purposes. On his eighth day in office, he did just that.
The reaction was swift, loud and seemingly everywhere as foreign-born people, many with green cards and visas, were stopped and detained at the nation's international airports last Saturday. Over the weekend, federal judges in New York City, Boston, Virginia and Seattle ruled that Trump's order could not apply to green card holders or those who received valid State Department-issued visas based on the pre-executive order protocol.
To its credit, the government recognized that the language of the executive order needed to be clarified because green card holders, no matter the country of origin, have the same right of exit and entry as citizens. Moreover, the government cannot constitutionally give anyone a benefit -- such as a visa -- and then nullify the benefit because it changed the issuing standards afterward. So the Trump changes can be prospective only.
Where does this leave us?
Expect numerous challenges in Congress and in the courts to Trump's order because, the challengers will argue, though its stated purpose was not to bar a religious group, its effect is largely to bar Muslims. For sure, the courts will address this. The purpose/effect distinction -- which exists in many areas of the law, such as school desegregation, legislative apportionment and voting rights -- has not been accepted by the courts against a president for a temporary immigration ban because the courts have often deferred to presidents on foreign policy.
Is the ban just?
Everyone knows we are a nation of immigrants. Three of my grandparents immigrated here as children. Most people recognize that all people have the natural right to travel, which means they can seek entry here; but the country has accepted the ideas that our borders are not open, that the welfare state here is not without financial limits and that in perilous times such as today, immigration is largely and legally in the hands of the president, whether one has voted for him or not.
Yet like all governmental powers, particularly those that often clash with natural rights when they are exercised, the power to regulate immigration must be exercised narrowly. Many reading this are here because someone left another country for the freedoms that are respected here. Those freedoms are natural to everyone and will always draw people here.
The government can only morally and constitutionally interfere with personal freedom for the most compelling of reasons and utilizing the least restrictive means. Is the government faithful to that well-recognized rule? We shall soon see.
Comments