Tag: Executive Orders

Categories
Quick Analysis

Judicial Overreach Concerns Grow, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of the Ninth Circuits’ overreach. 

Critics of the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit decisions on President Trumps’s travel ban executive orders have been blunt, and rightly so.

Robert Charles writing for Fox News notes that “The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, has issued one of the most ill-conceived, poorly reasoned opinions in memory, even for that notoriously activist Circuit…Whether motivated by antipathy for the president, love of limelight, or just fundamentally misconceiving their role, the Court stumbles into embarrassing contradictions, makes baseless assumptions, shows indifference to law and history… The job was simple:  Decide whether, given the President’s Article II prerogatives and authority as “Commander in Chief,” a single federal judge – one of 3,294 – can issue a sweeping, conclusory, nationwide “temporary restraining order” (TRO) halting implementation of a national security Executive Order (EO). If the TRO was unjustified, the Ninth Circuit was duty-bound to issue a “stay,” effectively ending the TRO and permitting implementation by the Department of Homeland Security of the EO.  Instead, they ducked, and insensibly upheld the TRO. They played to the street, and tried a legalistic putsch.  Fortunately, the opinion is likely to be reversed by the Supreme Court – but that will be a while…”

Matt O’Brien, writing in Lifezette  called the decision “ a deliberate attempt to shift control over immigration from the executive and legislative branches to the judicial branch in order to grant foreigners a constitutionally protected ‘right’ to enter the U.S. The 9th Circuit’s decision is way off-base.”  He notes that “The Supreme Court has previously held that federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases asking them to declare illegal the exercise of a power that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the other branches of government. This rule is referred to as the ‘Political Question Doctrine.’ It preserves the separation of powers by keeping the courts from assuming functions that should be performed by the legislature or the executive. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to set the national security agenda, conduct foreign affairs, or craft our immigration policies.”

Daniel Horowitz, author of the study Stolen Sovereignty, wrote a Conservative Review  article in which he expressed his deep concern over the actions of the Ninth Circuit relating to the Travel Ban, noting that its actions:

  • Allows ANY and ALL refugees to enter the U.S.
  • Stops President Trump from executing the law, which Congress passed
  • Circumvents Congress’ authority. Invents new constitutional right for non-citizens
  • Encourages ‘judge shopping’ to assert tyrannical authority over congressional and executive branches
  • Ignores American history, law, and tradition
  • Furthers what modern courts have done at chipping away American sovereignty

Timely treatment helps victims overcome the sildenafil tablets problem without much difficulty. The American Urological Association notes effective results l0061sts up to 4 hours. purchase of viagra , Intalis tablets are manufactured with Tadalafil, a PDE 5 inhibitor medicine class. The victim may suffer free consultation cialis http://appalachianmagazine.com/category/history/legend-and-tall-tales/ injuries that are disfiguring, costly and leave permanent physical and emotional scars. Going with a natural viagra sample free substance is always better than taking synthetic compounds.
Horowitz proposes several means to address the Ninth Circuits abuse: “Congress must use its [Constitutional] power and immediately move to strip lower courts of jurisdiction to grant rights to any foreign national to enter or remain in the country against the law unless statute explicitly preempts the president’s action. This way, plaintiffs would have to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which only has the bandwidth to deal with a limited number of cases. Nobody can dispute Congress’ supremacy over the lower courts because Congress created them. Alternatively, Congress, which has complete control over the administrative procedures of the courts, could prevent lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions against immigration enforcement acts outside of their respective districts and circuits.”

Horowitz believes the House of Representatives should bring articles of impeachment against rogue judges.

Professor Robert Gagnon  quotes Thomas Jefferson’s concern with excess power given to federal judges: “Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide … not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

A more recent but similar thought could be found in a 2003 Washington Times editorial:  “One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law…outrageous cases…suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance…The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government.”

The Courts are not the appropriate forum for the debate over President Trump’s travel and immigration policies.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Judicial Overreach Concerns Grow

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two part examination of judicial overreach in relation to the President’s travel ban executive orders. 

Progressives cheered when Ninth Circuit judges blocked President Trump’s travel ban, even though the constitutionality of the move was clearly problematic.  The usurping of power by one branch of government over another, however, can lead to disastrous consequences.  One need only look at the recent news from Venezuela to understand where this can lead.

The high court of that South American nation, (which, despite its vast oil wealth has been impoverished by a dictatorial socialist government) has dissolved the National Assembly.  The Court and President Nicolás Maduro are in concert, and the legislative branch was the last vestige of dissent. Those opposed to Maduro’s strong-man rule captured a majority of the National Assembly in 2015 as Maduro’s crushing economic mistakes and political oppression worsened.

The extraordinary move is not one sanctioned by Venezuela’s constitution. Similarly, the recent rulings of the U.S. Ninth Circuit restricting President Trump’s executive orders regarding travel from nations presenting a threat of terror fail to recognize the American Constitution’s Separation of Powers. Indeed, they rest on premises that even a first year law student should recognize as being without merit.

Joseph Klein, writing for Front Page, outlines why the Ninth Circuit has acted above its authority:

It cures ED within an hour without super active cialis any complications. This drug is approved buy generic cialis by the FDA to stop hair loss. L-arginine is needed for muscle energy production produced http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PlacePlans-minigrant-RFQ-5-31-16.pdf purchase levitra by creatine, and then it’s essential for nervous function required for cognitive performances in memory, language, motor skills, learning.., collagen synthesis in connective tissue leading to healthy skin, hair, and nails, and even help with physical intimacy. Fortunately, herbal medicines are also available, like Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill has its unique curative effect to downtownsault.org cheapest levitra cure hemospermia caused by seminal vesiculitis. “’The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,’ the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. “The right to do so …is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation…Congress reaffirmed the president’s power with respect to decisions excluding aliens in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which was originally enacted in 1952, and has been amended several times, including in 1996. The following language has remained intact: “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.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).

In an excellent analysis in the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro  notes that the logic behind the Ninth Circuit decisions could invalidate “virtually all immigration law.” Allowing a state to sue in federal court on the grounds that there could be potential harm to some of its citizens would open the door to the disuniting of the nation.  What could Washington do that doesn’t have some potential impact on the states? The Court complained that the federal government did “little more than” state the fact that it has an interest in preventing terrorism. Have the judges not been aware of instances such as 9/11, and the numerous other assaults? The Court also seems to establish a brand new interest not found in the Constitution—protecting the due process rights of illegal aliens, a right that doesn’t exist.

Finally, in a repudiation of common sense as well as common law, the Court pinned its decision not on the actual executive order in question, but on the campaign and other comments of President Trump.

And therein lies the heart of the matter.  This is not a ruling of law, it’s a statement of political opposition to the winner of the 2016 election, a piecemeal attempt to impose the personal views of Ninth Circuit judges over the lawful results of an election.  It is, in essence, quite similar to what was done in Venezuela.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Black Americans Angry at Obama

Democrats are facing criticism from an unexpected source: black Americans.  The issue prompting the rift is the policy move, led especially by President Obama, to liberalize illegal immigration.

Charles Butler, an astute political observer and radio personality who is a black American, is outraged over Chicago’s Democrat mayor and former Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel’s encouragement to illegal immigrants. Emmanuel has proposed providing access to 23,000 jobs for illegals. Butler recently wrote:

“No longer do I want to hear the claim humanitarian issues, racism, and other excuses for not enforcing the laws of our land on illegal aliens.  The Civil Rights Movement was about JOBS, freedom was a secondary objective.  In 1963, Dr. King lead the Marched on Washington against President Kennedy because he failed to end job discrimination with the stoke of a pen, as he had promised Dr. King…No taxpayer-funded job should go to an illegal alien when Americans are available to work…Illegal Immigrants are taking jobs from Black Americans, and negatively impacting Black Americans according a study from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. ”
The basic working module of the drug can be simply squeezed out shop levitra onto a spoon and swallowed easily.It is supplied in a range of flavours and quantities may include Litchi, Gauva, Caramel, Rasberry, Kiwi, Fig, Green apple. Other then these usages, buy viagra online in regencygrandenursing.com can also be used to treat phobias, however, it is mostly used by men over the age of 50, who cannot swallow a hard pill and still, suffering from this sexual disorder. This increased blood flow helps men maintain quality cialis viagra cheap on sale at shop of erection and also getting erections enough for healthy and enjoyable intimate acts. So you can order viagra uk shop them without any fear of bad effects and with assured results of enhanced affectivity.
Many believe, with a significant degree of accuracy, that the current large upswing in illegal immigration is a direct result of President Obama’s 2012 Executive Order mandating Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Programs. A Newsmax  report noted that the Executive Order “ended the threat of deportation for as many as 670,000 illegals between the age of 15 and 31 who were brought to the U.S. before their 16th birthday.” The program has been extended for two years.

With unemployment an ongoing crisis throughout the nation that is particularly onerous for black Americans, who are almost twice as likely to be unemployed as whites, the introduction of illegals into the work force is a particularly troubling issue.  Newsmax reports that Peter Kirsanow, a member of the Civil Rights Commission, recently noted that “in many low-skilled or unskilled occupations, in large swaths of the country, illegal immigrants have supplanted blacks—throwing lots of blacks out of work.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Is America abandoning its revolutionary ideals?

Tomorrow is July 4th, which we will celebrate with fireworks, parades and barbecues.

But does Independence Day have any meaning, now that our top elected officials and media elites have rejected the core principles which led to the Revolution?

The patriots who bled at Lexington and Concord, froze at Valley Forge, and, against all odds, emerged victorious at Yorktown would hardly recognize what American government has become under the leadership of Barack Obama. Indeed, they would be tempted to rebel against it with the same vigor with which they ousted King George.

The heroes who fought for the “Spirit of ‘76” would be deeply angered at the power- grabbing habits of this Administration.

The British King employed an army of German mercenaries to enforce his will. President Obama has appointed an army of lawyers in the Department of Justice, accountants in the IRS, and bureaucrats in numerous other agencies (particularly the Environmental Protection Agency) to intimidate and control political opponents and citizens, through the use of illegal executive orders.

This brings to mind the fear expressed by Cotton Mather’s grandson, Mather Byles,  who worried that the Revolution could replace “One tyrant three thousand miles away with 3,000 tyrants one mile away.”

The Patriots would not accept the monarchical usurpation of constitutional limits by a President who unabashedly proclaims that “I can’t wait”  for Congress, despite his legal obligation to do so.

This President has had to be rebuked an unprecedented twelve times  by unanimous verdicts of the United States Supreme Court. He is, therefore, a serial offender against the Constitution, and a recidivist lawbreaker.
This fragrance is launched in viagra prescriptions online 2008 and is available as 50ml (1.7 fl.oz.) and 100ml (3.4 fl.oz.) EDT. Now that we are talking about driving courses, we would viagra free straightly pick out the online parent taught driver ed course on this topic again, unless they get a citation and are needed by a judge to visit traffic school. It’s nothing but amazing growth from here cialis on line on out. Kamagra tablets 100mg is a genuine variety of PDE5 inhibitor which unwinds muscles that line the blood vessels of the penis which gets enzyme known as guanylate cyclase. brand viagra pfizer
Mr. Obama has used his surrogates to directly attack the First Amendment, seeking to cut off a broad national discussion about policy and issues.  He needs to do this because both his domestic and foreign agendas run directly contrary to the American spirit, American form of government, and inherent American rights.

He has sought to limit free speech by supporting international control of, and therefore censorship of the internet.  He has advocated suppressing free speech spending in political campaigns as a way of keeping his supporters in the Senate in office.

He has sought to place federal monitors in newsrooms.  He feels compelled to do this because an open discussion about his extraordinary failures in every area of our national life would be disastrous for his Administration.

He has hijacked whole federal agencies, especially the IRS, and warped them into vehicles to attack political opponents.  On this Independence Day week, it is not inappropriate to mention that the group most directly targeted is the Tea Party, whom this President and his lapdog media despise and fear because they advocate adhering to the Spirit of ’76 and the letter of the law expressed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Similar to rulers everywhere who fear the freedom of their own citizens, Mr. Obama has repeatedly attacked the right to bear arms, guaranteed in America by the 2nd Amendment, not directly, but through the advocacy of regulations that make that right meaningless. He has expanded the federal government’s actions that invade privacy, making a mockery of the 4th amendment.  Under his rule, he presumes that all powers belong to the Executive Branch unless specifically curtailed by a court, a direct contradiction of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Upon taking office, the President takes this oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Clearly, that oath has been violated.

The Constitution reflects the values of our revolutionary forefathers. We should honor them this Independence Day by insuring that the freedoms they fought for are not usurped.

Categories
NY Analysis

The Misuse of Executive Orders

As this report goes to press, President Obama is expected to make a significant statement concerning his proposal  to reduce carbon emissions from America’s 600 coal-based energy facilities.

Even before the details are released, significant controversy has occurred based on several key points: whether the president has the authority to enact sweeping and substantive measures without the consent of Congress; whether the proposals will be too costly for the depressed U.S. economy (which shrunk 1% during the first quarter of 2014);  whether reducing American energy output will place both the U.S. and our allies in a weakened position; and finally, whether the science upon which the theory of human induced climate change rests is, in fact, accurate.

This week, The NEW YORK ANALYSIS OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT briefly examines the President’s promised use of Executive Orders for the Environmental program. The regulations are expected to be significant, forcing American power plants to cut carbon emissions, and imposing vast costs on the U.S. economy. The President believes that he can engage in actions that will have the full force of law without the consent of Congress.

Weakening the President’s position is his prior failure to guide proposed environmental laws through Congress in his first term. Critics can maintain that the White House at first attempted to comply with the appropriate Constitutional methods, but resorted to an unconstitutional utilization of Executive Orders when he didn’t succeed.

U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 President Obama, 2013: Where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Article II, Section I of the Constitution vests executive power in the President. While there is no mention in the Constitution of executive orders, as chief executive, the President of the United States clearly requires the unilateral ability to take certain actions to fulfill his duties. The President’s role in seeing that federal laws are executed requires no consultation with the other two branches of government. It would be absurd to expect that every deployment of troops, every regular or normal daily operation of federal agencies, and every other normal administrative process be subjected to direct Congressional oversight.

There have been periods of history when Congress has been relatively lenient in its oversight of the President’s use—or abuse—of executive orders. During the establishment of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression, Humorist Will Rogers   remarked that “that Congress doesn’t make laws anymore, they just wave at the bills as they go by.”

The online law journal thelegality.com  notes that “While the mandate of Article II seems broad, it also limits the president’s power to only directing the actions of the executive branch.  For example, [former] President Bush’s E.O. 13435 (regarding the limited use of stem cells in research) have a limited effect because they only reach government agencies…The Executive is not a legislator…He is not above the law.”

Although Congress tends not to challenge most executive orders, it has met with success on some occasions when doing so. Several executive orders issued by President Clinton were struck down by the Court in reaction to Congressional objections.

Justice Hugo Black,  in the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer wrote that an executive order (1) “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself” and (2) an executive order is on dubious ground if it’s “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

In restricting then-President Truman’s ability to engage in actions which had the impact of legislation rather than mere administrative action, the Court held that an Executive Order not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, cannot stand, and exercises of Presidential authority which have the effect of lawmaking cannot stand because the Constitution vests such power in Congress alone.

There is a keen difference between administrative actions in fulfillment of the law and actually taking steps that affect the law itself, or, indeed, have the same impact as law. This controversy has been evident in the White House’s actions concerning the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare.)  The President’s unilateral action in deciding which portions of the law to enforce and which to ignore until sometime in the future when it is more politically expedient to do so has merited extensive and appropriate criticism.

Impotency resemble a major revile for the man to have proper love making sessions with levitra pills for sale proper erections. Certainties about Kamagra* It offering costs are sensible, as makers don’t need to do much interest as to its advancement, showcasing and improvement. buy generic viagra http://djpaulkom.tv/video-dj-paul-x-drumma-boy-x-crunchy-black-muscle-so-strong-visual/ Instead, you like to drink tadalafil sales sodas, you crave pizza, frozen foods, and sugars, and you smoke. So, Erectile viagra price Dysfunction Therapy can develop its characteristics at puberty, such as increased penis, voice deepening, testes size, and growth of body and facial hair but it can also negative and adverse effects on the follicles. President Obama has not been criticized for the number of Executive Orders issued—both of his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush issued more—but for the scope of activities covered in those he did issue.

Writing in Forbes earlier this year, James Powell noted that:

“Apparently President Obama has become convinced that he can make magic with that pen he keeps talking about, the one he plans to use for signing executive orders to revive his beleaguered presidency.  Executive orders are irresistible, because a president doesn’t have to propose anything, debate the issues, endure hearings or solicit votes.  An executive order can be issued in a few minutes — behind closed doors and away from bright lights… Many executive orders are in a twilight zone of dubious constitutional legitimacy if not open defiance of the Constitution, especially when they amount to lawmaking without congressional approval…”

John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, has written in a Heritage publication   that “President Obama has shown no qualms about taking unilateral actions that bypass Congress and ignore important separation of powers principles that are an essential safeguard of our liberty.”

Joel Pollack, writing in Breitbart, provides three criticisms of President  Obama’s use of executive orders:

“The first is that Obama is using executive orders and actions to alter his own legislation. …The second way in which Obama’s abuse of executive power is different is that he has done it to prevent the legislature from acting…the president issued his “Dream Act by fiat” in 2012 not just because Congress wouldn’t pass his version of immigration reform, but to outflank Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was preparing his own version, embarrassing Obama among Latino voters…The third way in which Obama’s behavior is unusual is that he commands sweeping executive power on some issues while arguing, on other issues, that he has no power to act… There is no constitutional doctrine behind the president’s executive orders, actions, and omissions…”

 

Attorney Gary Wickert, examined some of President’s Obama’s executive orders:

“In the spring of 2012, President Obama issued an aggressive string of executive orders to combat what he viewed as hopelessly-deadlocked Congress. Some of his more controversial, and arguably unconstitutional executive orders are as follows:Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act;Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls;Changed significant provisions of and the timing of Obamacare;Declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional;Reshaped immigration policy by ordering  the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal immigrants.
Each unilateral action by the president substituted for a failed legislative proposal.  ‘I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,’ he said. However, under the Constitution, that is not the way things are supposed to work. “

The President’s use of his authority to implement environmental measures has been a particular source of criticism. The Congressional newspaper The Hill noted that Attorneys general  in 17 states have contended that “the Environmental Protection Agency has overreached in pursuit of President Obama’s plan to counter the effects of climate change via federal regulation.” They maintain that the “EPA, if unchecked, will continue to implement regulations which far exceed its statutory authority to the detriment of the States, in whom Congress has vested authority under the Clean Air Act, and whose citizenry and industries will ultimately pay the price of these costly and ineffective regulations…”

CONCLUSION

The dueling sides for and against the President’s carbon emissions plan will disagree on the specific merits of the proposal.  The far more important debate, however, will have nothing to do with the details of this program and everything to do with whether the United States will continue to be governed by Constitutional provisions clearly calling for a series of checks and balances on the authority of the chief executive.