IMMIGRATION LIMITATIONS — 2017

TEMPORARY BAN ON IMMIGRANTS FROM 7 MUSLIM COUNTRIES  

WIP >>> Work in Progress Please be Patient!   

 

We are a nation of laws; … or so they say.
    If this were true, a large number of public servants, including members of Congress, would be in jail. An equal or greater percentage of judges would also be in jail. The kids for cash scandal in Luzerne County, PA, resulted in two Family court judges convicted and incarcerated for lengthy periods. Reliable sources maintain that the investigation of kids for cash went much deeper into the political realm for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that it was cut short lest some very influential people be held accountable for their criminal misconduct; including members or former members of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

      At this point in time, the United states is floundering both economically and politically. The 2016 favored candidate for the office of President of the United States should have been indicted by the federal FBI for the destruction of “classified information” records in violation of 18 USC 2071, which if convicted, disqualifies her from holding public office. The country’s premier law enforcement agency chose instead, to not even bring an indictment despite after a public announcement of her extreme negligence and crimes. I suppose no one believes that the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton (Hillary’s husband and former POTUS) and Attorney General Loretta Lynch (of the same political party) in an airplane in Phoenix, had no influence on the FBI decision to refuse to indict. We the people can no longer trust our government. 

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson
“A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” 
— Thomas Jefferson

       Thomas Jefferson, one of this nation’s founding fathers was a brilliant man who is often quoted for many subjects. Jefferson had remarkable foresight. My favorite Jefferson quotation was uttered very late in his life. He said:
 
“The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body – 
working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and 
advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render 
powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive 
as the government from which we separated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1821

     This quotation could not be more appropriate than what we are witnessing in the first weeks of the presidency of Donald J. Trump (POTUS). A federal District Judge, James Robart, deter- mined that an executive order (EO) issued by Trump to ban immigration from seven countries on the other side of the globe, each of whom has extensive ties to radical Islamic terrorists, and who Pose threats to the National security and safety of Americans cannot be enforced because there maybe some commercial damage to the state of Washington and/or other American states because many foreign students would be unable to enter the United States.
Robart suspended enforcement of the EO and determined that the constitutional duty of the president to preserve and protect our nation and its people is subordinate to the commercial interests of colleges and businesses in our country. Robart disregards the fiduciary respons-ibility of his office to protect and defend the constitution and laws of this country. As a “public servant”, judge Robart has committed conflict of interest crimes under 5 CFR 2635.101 — Basic obligations of public servants.

    Remarkably, Robart’s decision was “UPHELD” by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Federal District Court. The court failed to review whether the POTUS has Constitutional authority to issue the EO, or whether federal Statutory law specifically authorizes a POTUS to determine who shall, or shall Not be permitted to enter this Country. Is it relevant to note that the Ninth Circuit  is the most frequently “overturned”appellate court in the U.S.?  Media reports that 80% of the cases heard by SCOTUS from the Ninth Circuit are overturned. Does that percentage speak well of Ninth Circuit District judges?     I THINK NOT! 

      Whether the misconduct of this particular judge, James Robart, reaches the necessary standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, subjecting him to impeachment is a matter that should be scrutinized very carefully. Further, his decision was reviewed by a three person appellate court panel for the 9th District federal courts. The only True question before the appellate court should have been whether a District court has jurisdiction to hear and possibly override the authority of the President of the United States to limit immigration of and by countries with close ties to our enemies? Several arguments can be raised, not the least of which should consider whether a federal District court can usurp the authority of a POTUS without first reaching a determination of whether OR NOT the POTUS actions were taken within his Constitutional powers. When a court reviews the authority of a POTUS to take any “action”, the standard of review MUST  begin with the “strict scrutiny test”. There is no legal question or challenge to the authority of a POTUS to suspend or ban immigration from select areas of the world. See  8 U.S.C. 1182, to review the statutory Law that controls the “inadmissibility” of immigrants INTO the U.S.   

Judicial Impeachment
Article II, Section 4 provides:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The most elaborate argument in support of the constitutionality of non-impeachment machinery was developed by Professor ShartelV He contended that the impeachment clause of Article II was a limitation on the power of the Congress to remove judges, and Article III a limitation on the executive power of removal. No constitutional limitation existed on the power of Congress to define “good behavior” in Article III and to provide a mechanism whereby the judiciary could try the fitness of its own members.'” In other words, judicial power to try the fitness of judges was not prohibited though the executive was deprived of all power and the legislature limited to impeachment. Slight support for this conclusion can be found in the case law construing Article II with respect to non-judicial civil officers; in that context it has been held that impeachment is not the sole power of removal.” Additionally, the standard of “good behavior” in Article III is not self-evidently the obverse of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II. There might be conduct less than good behavior that is not a high crime or misdemeanor, for example, insanity or senility where the judge’s condition is morally blameless.