Federal judges don't have the legal authority under the Constitution to second-guess or overrule the executive orders of the president. But a federal circuit court judge in Hawaii has done just that.

The judge has issued a restraining order against President Trump's revised travel restrictions on six terrorist-ridden countries. The executive order is a watered-down version of an earlier plan that included Iraq. Democrats immediately began circling their wagons in an attempt to block the order before even giving it a fair hearing.

The judge in issuing the restraining order pronounced the travel restrictions were unconstitutional because they permit religious discrimination against foreigners. What this judge forgets is that the constitution is not to be construed as a universal document. It was crafted by the Founding Fathers to serve as a set of guaranteed legal protections for the American people, meaning citizens, not foreigners. The constitution does not legally apply to immigrants and it most certainly does not apply to illegal aliens.

In yet another failure of logic, the judge ruled that Trump's alleged anti-Muslim motivation -- not the actual, literal text of the travel restrictions -- is what counts. Trump's motivation has been pretty clear since he became a candidate for president: his concern is for the safety and protection of America from enemies both foreign and domestic. There is no specific or generic language in Trump's travel restrictions that target muslims or people based on religion.

The court granted legal "standing" to foreigners based on the hurt feelings the travel restrictions might cause to the people it aims to restrict.

Once again, emotion figures prominently in the judge's decision instead of any legal precedent or genuine constitutional basis. There are many things that can hurt the feelings of others. This does not give them the right to sue or negate a presidential executive order.

What we are seeing in the Hawaii court decision is judicial overreach of monumental proportions. Federal judges are supposed to be fluent in the constitution and are sworn to uphold it. They are not supposed to be arbiters of the constitution in the service of a political cause or agenda.

Please share this on Facebook if you believe the federal judge in Hawaii had not legal authority to challenge President Trump's executive order placing travel restrictions on six foreign countries.

Source: Daily Wire

 

Tags: ,


 

 
JOIN U.S. HERALD Subscribe for FREE today and find out what's REALLY happening in America!

Send this to friend