Once again, a federal judge has issued an order that usurps the legitimate constitutional authority of the President of the United States who has a sworn duty and plenary powers to keep America safe. In this case, a plenary power is one that is granted to the office-holder of the President of the United States in absolute terms, with no review of, or limitations upon the exercise of that power.
The President’s Executive Orders
On September 24, 2017, the President signed Proclamation No. 9645, entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” Like its two previously enjoined predecessors, EO-3 restricts the entry of foreign nationals from specified countries, but this time, it does so indefinitely. Plaintiffs State of Hawai’i (“State”), Ismail Elshikh, Ph.D., John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii, Inc., seek a nationwide temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that would prohibit Defendants3 from enforcing and implementing Sections 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h) before EO-3 takes effect. Pls.’ Mot. for TRO 1, ECF No. 368. <Source>
Since when do our enemies and representatives of our enemies get a vote on national defense measures that are designed to protect the entire population of the United States of America? And why does a Harvard-trained lawyer and Obama appointee, United States District Court Derrick Watson, take it upon himself to overrule the President’s clear and unambiguous power in such a manner as to make the United States more vulnerable to its enemies?
National security and the protection of our borders is unquestionably also of significant public interest. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981). Although national security interests are legitimate objectives of the highest order, they cannot justify the public’s harms when the President has wielded his authority unlawfully. See Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 783. <Source>
How can the President’s absolute power, which is not subject to congressional or judicial review in this matter be curtailed by a single man sitting on the bench in an environment decidedly hostile to the President of the United States?
Bring charges of “abuse of power” against the President if you must, but let the President do his job to make our nation safe from the type of terrorists who are ravaging and pillaging Europe.
In carefully weighing the harms, the equities tip in Plaintiffs’ favor. “The public interest is served by ‘curtailing unlawful executive action.’ Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 784 (quoting Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016)). When considered alongside the statutory injuries and harms discussed above, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO. <Source>
Perhaps the Jurist should understand the concept of Plenary Powers and how it is implemented by the President of the United States?
Perhaps the learned jurist should examine the writings of the Qur’an and rule that its intolerance backed by a never-ending jihad that seeks to dominate the world is a clear and present danger to individual freedom and those nations and its peoples that do not embrace its teachings?
Today, America is less safe when terrorists, spies, and sleeper cells can legally enter the United States with the knowledge that their rights are protected even though they swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign power at war with American soldiers.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
It is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that: Defendant ELAINE DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of
State; and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order, hereby are enjoined fully from enforcing or implementing Sections 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h) of the Proclamation issued on September 24, 2017, entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats” across the Nation. Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court. <Source>
So who are the foreign powers that are being protected by this lone activist judge? [To be noted: the judge upheld the ban on North Korea and Venezuela]
The Judge’s flawed reasoning …
“EO-3 plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the Ninth Circuit has found antithetical to both Section 1152(a) and the founding principles of this Nation.”
How does this make sense?
Does this ruling mean that any nation whose population happens to be Muslim, that they get permission to enter the United States if they harbor terrorists or are engaging in an undeclared war against the United States, its allies, and Western civilization? There are NO FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this nation that do not appear in our founding documents; specifically our Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There is nothing in these documents that amounts to a suicide pact or an agreement to allow our enemies, both active and inactive, access to our country.
Bottom line …
Why do we allow the fiction of dual citizenship or citizenships of convenience? You are either an American and swear allegiance to our nation or you are an interloper with temporary access. There are more Chinese and Iranian covert agents in America than special agents in the FBI. Does it make sense to continue to provide access to those who steal our intellectual property or purchase our goods and services to aid in their war against our nation or our allies?
Does it make sense to allow activist judges to override the President of the United States in matters of safety, security, and national defense?
We are so screwed.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius