Op-ed:
A Calculatingly Clever Political Move
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right
Side Patriots on American Political Radio
“We the People of the
United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
–
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
And so the battle rages on between President Trump and the
rule of law vs. liberal judges and justices who flagrantly violate the law that
is our Constitution. And what a sad situation it truly is for even after having
survived eight long traitorous years of a presidency where America’s allies
became our enemies and America’s enemies became that president’s friends, and
with us now finally having a president who truly wants to keep the homeland and
‘We the People’ safe, he is being forced to fight tooth-and-nail to do so.
And doing so President Trump is, but he is fighting an uphill
battle against the very people that are supposed to follow the rule of law not
interpret it in such a way as to push forward their own personal political
agendas. And sadder still is that that scenario reaches all the way up to the
Supreme Court...our nation’s highest court...yet a court also rife with some who not
only let their personal beliefs guide their decisions, but who fail to understand the law as written in the very document they swore to serve and
protect.
..."[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the
lawgiver."
– Justice Antonin Scalia in his 1997 Tanner Lecture
And know that the Constitution clearly defines the duties that
belong to the states and those that belong on the federal level, yet today’s
liberal courts willingly and knowingly choose to either ignore the very words
their rulings should be based upon or to blur the distinction between state and
federal duties in order to reach a decision that fits their political agenda
and the Constitution be damned.
A huge difference indeed and critical to understanding just
how wrong the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got it when they upheld the lower
court’s ruling to stop President Trump’s temporary travel ban from going into
effect...a ban that affected citizens from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Libya,
Yemen, and Syria from entering the U.S. for 90 days, halted the refugee program
for 120 days, and indefinitely barred the acceptance of Syrian refugees.
So what does the Constitution say regarding immigration into
our country and how does it affect what President Trump wanted to impose in
regards to his travel ban is the question. First, it must be understood that the
right to freely travel is indeed an inherent natural right afforded American
citizens falling under the banner of the right to
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but that right was
not fully recognized as such until a 1969 Supreme Court ruling came down in the
case of Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). This was the case filed on
behalf of a 19-year-old unwed mother of one who was pregnant with her second, who
was (I believe rightfully) denied welfare benefits...the 'gimme-gimmes' were at
it even back then...based upon the grounds that she had not lived
"in-State" for
a year before her welfare application was filed, a requirement under then Connecticut
law.
So when the then left-leaning Supreme Court ruled in the
plaintiff’s favor their decision established within U.S. law as fundamental the
"right to travel" as a
privilege of citizenship that was now to be understood as protected by Article IV...the Constitution’s
Privileges and Immunities Clause. But, and this is critical,
nowhere in the ruling did it say that the “right to
travel” would be given to foreign nationals to freely travel into our
country.
And herein lies the crux of the issue we now face for while
the courts should protect 'natural rights' given to American citizens it cannot
and should not interfere with said rights and give those same rights to non-citizens
based upon misinterpretations...whether deliberate or not...of the law as
written. In other words they must be faithful to the original meaning of the
Constitution, being that while Congress does indeed have the Constitutional authority
to establish laws of naturalization and/or immigration they do not have the right nor Constitutional
authority to create blanket legislation that allows non-citizens the rights of
born or naturalized Americans.
And as such, thrown out should be any talk of blanket
amnesty for illegals that Democrats so desperately want, and as for
President Trump’s temporary travel ban where the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals put the ‘so-called’ rights of muslim college students above that
of American citizens, that too should be thrown out.
So in regards to the right to freely travel as it relates to
President Trump’s temporary travel ban as per what the law intended...foreign
nationals whether immigrants, refugees, and most especially those out to kill
us all, have no right to
“freely travel” to come here nor do we as a country
have a legal right to take them in for they are not citizens. Remember, the Constitution
was written to be the laws for and to be the protection of American citizens alone
and for liberal judges to adjudicate decisions in such a way as to blanket
cover all the world’s people is just plain wrong for the law is as it is, and
the law should not and must not be manipulated via reckless intent and interpretation by those
wishing to bend it to fit their own personal or political ideologies or agendas.
And the Fourteenth Amendment is clear on this as it defines
who are citizens and who are not as in "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..." meaning the
rights we citizens are afforded as per the Constitution does not allow for
foreigners to be put above the rights of American citizens nor does it say we
must welcome into our country those intent on doing us harm.
Also, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, empowers Congress, “To establish a uniform Rule of
Naturalization,” and this combined with Congress’s shared power with the
president to govern the foreign policy of the nation, does indeed give Congress
and the president discretion on who enters this country, how long they can
stay, under what specific conditions they can enter or stay, and by what
process some of them can become citizens.
And all this translates into President Trump’s executive
order temporarily banning travel to the U.S. of those from seven muslim countries
deemed a danger to America in that they harbor, train, operate from, or afford
protection to those wishing to do us harm, was most assuredly Constitutionally sound
and that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in their decision handed down did indeed
not only go against the set perimeters of Constitutional law in regards to the separation of powers, but also adjudicated their vision of how to conduct foreign affairs instead of letting the president do what he needed to do as
Commander-in-Chief in regards to protecting these United States.
And in their ruling in favor of what the liberals love to
call ‘social justice’ these justices went against Constitutional law for the Constitution
does not...I repeat does not...delegate to the federal government the power to
make decisions regarding immigration, it only gives the federal government
the power over naturalization, as in giving Congress the power to restrict “migrants” eligibility for citizenship.
This means that with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals being a federal court...thus being part of the federal government...they did indeed overstep their bounds when refusing
to lift the restraining order as per a lower court’s ruling that stopped Trump's
temporary travel ban from being implemented even though much needed precedent for
its implementation had already been set.
In addition is the fact that the Constitution itself gives the
president the right to issue such an order. And while executive orders do not
require Congressional approval, they do, according to Article II, Section 1 of
the Constitution, have the same legal weight as if they were passed by Congress even
though they are not actual legislation.
So where do we go from here now that the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals has taken it upon themselves to
interpret the law as per their whims and not as laid down in
the Constitution. Where do we go as said court claimed Trump’s executive order as
written violated the Establishment Clause because it was discriminatory towards a
certain group of people (muslims) and singled out a certain religion (islam)...which it did not as can be seen in my article '
Tim Scott, Activist Judges, and an Unconstitutional and Traitorous Ruling'....an order that
I personally believe was not tough enough and for the obvious
reason that muslims put sharia law above our rule of law which is the
Constitution, something these judges either failed to take into account or
simply chose not to take into account.
Where do we go...we go to President Trump himself to turn this wrong
right and who issued the following statement upon hearing the 9th Circuit Court’s
ruling, “We’ll be doing something very
rapidly having to do with additional security for our country...you’ll be seeing that sometime next week,”
letting everyone know that he will not be giving into a ruling that truly does
put our nation’s security in jeopardy.
And while Trump could have an 11-judge Circuit Court panel review the decision to
see if his order as it stands should be heard by the entire 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals know two things...first, even if he does this it does NOT mean this is the final outcome only that it could be reviewed and second, know Trump does have tricks up his sleeve including that he could use The Refugee Act of 1980 to 'manipulate' refugee numbers down...as in set the ceiling lower on the annual numbers let in and from which countries specifically...as is his right to do. But being the smart man that he is, President Trump knows he cannot risk taking this to the Supreme Court as the court
is now evenly split along ideological lines and if their vote also splits
along those lines the 9th Circuit’s ruling would stand...meaning the delusional left wins and ‘We
the People’ lose yet again.
So President Trump’s most likely options include either a
reworking of the order’s language in such a way that is more likely to pass
legal scrutiny...such as clarifying that the order does not apply to legal
permanent residents and other certain visa holders...both key points of
contention in his order as it now stands. Or he could actually shelve that
order and write a brand new executive order that will actually toughen the ban by
zeroing in on more specifics thus tightening our security even more, and if
written correctly there will be nothing the courts, the Democrats, or his
naysayers on the left can do for like they found out with the ‘nuclear option’
they will find that sometimes things should have been left as was and not as
they want or wish it to be.
And with a man as calculatingly clever as Donald Trump is maybe
this was his plan all along...root them out...find out both their weakness and
their wants...and then go in for the figurative political ‘kill’ so to speak.
Something to think about now isn’t it...just saying.
**********************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!
Today, Tuesday, February 14th from 7to 9pm EST on
American Political Radio,
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss the Constitution's upholding of Trump's travel ban, defining the Democrat party, and numbers maybe even Democrats can understand.
Hope you can tune in at:
http://tunein.com/radio/American-Political-Radio-s273246/
White House National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn has
resigned after controversy surrounding his communications with Russia.
Here is the full text of Flynn's resignation letter, bolding is mine:
