On February 3, a single federal judge sitting in Seattle, Washington, blocked a common-sense immigration order by the newly elected President Trump as he attempted to protect our Nation against migration from countries associated with terrorism. Those nations were Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. This solitary federal judge issued a sweeping temporary restraining order (TRO) that tied Trump’s hands nationwide and prevented him from implementing his mandate from the American people to protect us.
In contrast with ability of a CEO of a private business to implement his agenda, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, is finding that activist courts will block much of what he tries to accomplish.
President Trump’s immigration order was being enforced by the temporary Attorney General he installed in D.C., after the prior one had refused to enforce Trump’s order. Upwards of 60,000 visas were being revoked from those nations. But those visas were then abruptly restored against the will of the Trump administration.
Federal judges hold unelected, lifetime positions and can only be removed through impeachment by Congress, which has never happened based on judicial rulings. The underused method for reining in an overreaching judiciary is for Congress to withdraw its jurisdiction, or for the president to decline to enforce its orders. Some of the temporary restraining orders may be reversed or curtailed on appeal or in subsequent rulings. But liberals bring multiple lawsuits on issues like these until they win and it is affirmed.
Several prior presidents, including Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, stood up against federal courts when they grabbed power beyond their rightful role under the Constitution. The checks and balances in our Constitution should flow both directions.
Click here to listen to today's commentary:
No comments:
Post a Comment