Another ruling from a federal appeals court signifies once again why President Donald J. Trump must focus anew on filling judicial vacancies with constitutional originalists who are not Left-wing political hacks dressed in black robes.
An en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that Trump’s travel ban on persons entering the country from terrorism-infested countries is somehow unconstitutional not based on law and the president’s statutory and constitutional authority to issue such orders, but on what he said during the campaign.
As reported by Breitbart News, the 10-3 ruling is very likely to set up a showdown over presidential powers and actual written statutes at the U.S. Supreme Court, where there are more constitutional jurists than there are Left-wing ideologues (allegedly).
The appeals court, in a 67-page ruling, essentially said that “even an executive order that makes no mention of Islam in its text can be invalidated for violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because of comments Trump and his associates made during and after the 2016 presidential election,” Breitbart News reported.
Writing for the appeals court, Chief Judge Roger Gregory called the Establishment Clause an “untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles,” adding that the travel ban order “in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.”
In other words, all these judges who so far have blocked Trump’s two travel orders are doing so on the premise that they can somehow read his mind, which is as absurd as it is preposterous (and never mind that Trump’s first foreign trip as president was a visit to the heart of Islam — Saudi Arabia).
“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute,” Gregory wrote.
Yes, it is. The “broad power” is very clearly stated in the Immigration and Nationality Act that all presidents, including the last one, have used to block entry of certain aliens, for a variety of reasons. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “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.”
Very clearly then, national security can be just one of multiple reasons why a president would want to block entry by aliens.
To underscore the insanity of the reasoning behind the court’s ruling, the majority cited several quotes from Trump and his advisers as well as the campaign’s website as ‘proof’ that the president’s travel ban is really just a way of favoring one religion over another.
The court also relied on an Establishment Clause precedent that has never once been applied in the context of an immigration-related order, deciding that Trump’s pledge to keep Americans safe from terrorism is a BS excuse to keep more Muslims out of the country.
One of the quotes used by the majority to reinforce their phony narrative was that of one-time Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Peirson, who said on CNN, “I think Islam hates us… [W]e can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred… [w]e’ve allowed this propaganda to spread all through the country that [Islam] is a religion of peace.”
And yet, every terrorist attack that has occurred in the U.S. and the West since 9/11 has been conducted by Islamic extremists. (RELATED: Two liberal activist judges block Trump’s revised travel ban)
Even more than that, to confer meaning into Peirson’s statement without context is not simply disingenuous, it’s wholly inappropriate.
There is more, and you can read the ruling here. But the fact is, the Obama-appointed federal judiciary is attempting to overturn the results of a valid presidential election one court ruling at a time, undermining a president whose principal duty is to protect the country.
Let it be said as clearly as possible: Presidents have the constitutional and statutory authority to keep anyone they want out of the country, for any reason they deem necessary. Period. They don’t have to ask federal courts for permission.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.