Federal Courts Rule that National Security is Unconstitutional

President Donald Trump has put forward two executive orders since his inauguration in an effort to protect the country and give time to implement extreme vetting procedures that are sorely needed. Both times, the federal courts have decided to legislate from the bench in an unprecedented overreach that has played politics with our national security.

The first go-round saw Trump sign a common-sense executive order that temporarily halted entry to the U.S. for those from seven nations in which proper vetting procedures could not, or in some cases simply were not, being implemented.

The Democrat propaganda machine known as the mainstream media was, of course, aghast. Sen. Chuck Schumer, despite calling for a similar measure not long ago when the president had a different letter by his name, cried in a little dog-and-pony show about how super-sad it was to protect American citizens.

That’s bad enough, but it is what it is. Dems are gonna Dem, of course.

The problem was what happened next as an appointee of former President George W. Bush, Judge James Robart (supposedly a conservative), of the loony leftist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, stepped in and decided to begin the massive, dangerous judicial overreach by suspending the executive order.

That overreach was then upheld by the 9th Circuit, which made it clear that we have a massive problem with a politicized judiciary, at least in the 9th Circuit (and let’s be honest, probably elsewhere) that thinks it has veto power over constitutionally sound presidential orders.

Fast forward weeks later, when Trump put forward a revised executive order in an effort to get the protections in place that are desperately needed. In this one, instead of seven countries, six are included, with Iraq taken off as the country reportedly worked with the U.S. to improve vetting.

Other changes included honoring those with legal visas or legal right to be in the U.S. in the first place, removing the religious minority provision, and no longer banning Syrians indefinitely.

Basically, it was watered down to get it through without the legal wrangling — but not so fast.

Of course, that wasn’t good enough for leftists, as U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson got on the judicial activism bandwagon and decided to slap on a temporary emergency halt.

This followed after Hawaii actually filed suit over the executive order, in another example of the left using the legal system to implement their insane radical agenda.

The Associated Press reported:

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson questioned whether the administration was motivated by national security concerns. He issued the decision Wednesday, just hours before the ban was supposed to take effect.

Watson also said Hawaii would suffer financially if the ban blocked the flow of students and tourists to the state, concluding that Hawaii was likely to succeed on a claim that the executive order violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination.

Robert Gehl here at TFPP reported about the next judge to jump on the bandwagon:

Thursday morning, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang said the President’s travel ban was still a mechanism for discriminating against Muslims. He specifically cited Trump’s comments for his justification, The Washington Post reports.

“The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.

The judge’s ruling blocks the part of Trump’s order related to issuing visas to people from the six countries in the ban. Judge Chuang said the plaintiffs did “not provide a sufficient basis” for him to block any other parts of the order.


So in a nutshell, that’s where we are.

Trump has the constitutional authority to implement his executive order, yet we have an out-of-control judiciary that is massively overreaching and obliterating the separation of powers.

Leftist judges are playing politics with our national security and disturbingly pushing the open-borders globalist agenda by asserting that non-citizens somehow have the same Constitutional rights as American citizens.

It is utter insanity.

Take a look at Ann Coulter’s excellent points about what Trump could and should do next, that illustrate the insanity of what the left is trying to push here:

He’s not likely to do it, but Coulter brings up some excellent points. If they’re going to say that’s what he’s doing, perhaps he should just do it and we can suss out the reality here — that he actually has every right to do it, even though that’s actually not what he’s doing now.

But hey, if you’re going to accuse him of doing it, he might as well just actually do it. The problem, of course, is that his nominee for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, isn’t on the bench yet and with a massively politicized judiciary, that could backfire.

Still, it’s boiling over to a point where there’s going to need to be a fight to restore constitutional sanity and demand that the judiciary stay in their lane and, you know, actually uphold the Constitution.



C.E. Dyer

About C.E. Dyer

C.E. Dyer is a Christian, common sense conservative writer who is dedicated to writing about the issues the mainstream media would rather bury.