5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

 

Well-Well. It looks like five Justices of the Supreme Court still adhere to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time it is evident there are four Justices that take to the fallacy of a Living Constitution, meaning activist Judges can interpret the Constitution according Leftist ideology rather than the Original Intent of the letter of the law.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules Pro-Life facilities cannot be forced to share information of State options to kill unborn babies.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules that the Office of President has the Constitutional ability to limit travel from nations that a National Security issue is apparent.

 

Both decisions were decided by a 5-4 vote.

 

Below are two Fox News stories with the details.

 

JRH 6/26/18

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

By Adam Shaw

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that counsel pregnant women to make choices other than abortion, invalidating a California law requiring them to prominently post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion.

 

The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said the state law likely violates the First Amendment. The court also cast doubts on similar laws in Hawaii and Illinois.

 

The state regulations, targeting centers that provide counseling-related services with the goal of helping women make choices other than abortion, demanded such centers prominently post information on how to obtain abortion and contraception.

 

The law also required unlicensed, non-medical facilities to inform clients that they are not licensed medical providers. If pregnancy centers fail to comply with the law, they’re fined $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense, according to the law.

 

Pro-life groups had challenged the regulations, arguing that they violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Supporters of the law said that it was necessary since many women were unaware of the options available to them.

 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both arguments and upheld the law — arguing that the state could regulate professional free speech and the law protects public health interests. The Supreme Court reversed that judgement.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion, “California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it.” He also called the regulations for unlicensed facilities “unjustified and unduly burdensome.”

 

Thomas was joined by fellow conservative justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Dissenting were liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

Breyer, in his dissent, said among the reasons the law should be upheld is that the high court has previously upheld state laws requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions about adoption services. “After all, the law must be evenhanded,” Breyer said.

 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra called the ruling “unfortunate.”

 

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women — regardless of their economic background or zip code — deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions,” Becerra said in a statement.

 

“Today’s Court ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their healthcare options will continue.”

 

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Madeline Farber and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News. He can be reached here.

 

++++++++++

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

By Bill Mears

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

 

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

 

In a written statement, Trump called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution.” As critics continued to decry the policy as “xenophobic,” Trump described the court decision as “a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

 

 

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration’s policies affecting visitors from five majority Muslim nations – known as travel ban 3.0 – discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion, in the government’s issuance of immigrant visas.

 

CLICK TO READ THE DECISION

 

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of presidential authority” under federal law.

 

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” he wrote.

 

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the court’s four liberals that wrote a dissent.

 

“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the president’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

 

She and Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading their dissents from the bench.

 

While the policy was upheld, the case was sent back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

 

It was the first significant legal test so far of Trump’s policies and power and could lead to a precedent-setting expansion on the limits of presidential authority, especially within the immigration context.

 

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent months had ruled against the administration. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court last December concluded Trump’s proclamation, like the two previous executive orders, overstepped his powers to regulate the entry of immigrants and visitors.

 

But the justices had allowed the current restrictions to be enforced at the Justice Department’s request, at least until the case was fully litigated.

 

The Trump administration also seemed to enjoy a favorable reception before the court during arguments in April. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, during those April arguments, noted that of the 50 or so mostly Muslim majority countries, only five were on the current banned list.

 

The White House had framed the issue as a temporary move involving national security.

 

A coalition of groups in opposition called the order blatant religious discrimination, since the countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing.

 

A major sticking point for the justices was navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

 

A 1952 federal law — the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence — historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

 

It reads in part: “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, 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.”

 

The administration strongly denies this is a “Muslim ban,” but federal judges across the country cited statements by then-presidential candidate Trump and his advisers, including a December 2015 campaign press release calling for such restrictions and citing “hatred” by “large segments of the Muslim population.”

 

The high court’s majority downplayed Trump’s campaign statements as a major factor in its decision.

 

“The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” wrote Roberts. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

 

Sixteen state leaders led by Texas were among a number of coalitions backing the Trump administration. But Hawaii officials, who filed the appeal contesting all of the president’s orders, said the president’s policies violate the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom:

 

“Any reasonable observer who heard the president’s campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his administration’s persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the president’s promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States.”

 

Trump’s first executive order was issued just a week after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries. It triggered chaos and protests across the U.S., as some travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and others detained at airports for hours. Trump modified the order after a federal appeals court refused to allow the ban to be enforced.

 

“This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” the president said on Jan. 29, 2017.

 

The next version, unveiled weeks later, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn’t apply to those travelers who already had valid visas. It also got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes did not erase the legal problems with the ban.

 

When that second temporary travel ban expired in Sept. 24, it was replaced with Proclamation 9645 — what the administration said was a country-by-country assessment of security and cooperation with the U.S.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

______________________

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

____________________

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

And

 

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask permission to share the Fox News posts. If requested I will remove them.]

 

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:


SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

 

Here is a quote that rings true about Lower Federal Courts striking down President Trump’s Executive Order travel ban from Islamic terrorist ridden nations or areas:

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law”.

 

The quote comes from journalist author Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Press speculating with some positive certainty that SCOTUS will strike down the Lower Courts to President Trump’s favor.

 

Gibbs’ positivism comes from the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.

 

I pray Gibbs is correct. We are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth waiting to elect him as President.

 

There are roughly two trains of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.

 

President Trump’s EOs ran into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution interpretation.

 

The Activist Judges struck down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.

 

If a majority of SCOTUS Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S. Government.

 

WHY?

 

Because a Living Constitution Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:

 

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: August 18, 1821

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . 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 be usurped. (Thomas Jefferson – It has longQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. (The JudiciaryQuotes Database)

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge Spencer Roane

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: September 6, 1819

The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (The ConstitutionQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it ProvesQuotes Database)

 

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 47

Categories: Separation of Powers

Date: January 30, 1788

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (The Accumulation of all PowersQuotes Database)

 

These are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category Separation of Powers Quotations.

 

My concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.

 

The President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders. How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.

 

Here is some further reading:

 

Why Judicial Supremacy Isn’t Compatible with Constitutional Supremacy; By RAMESH PONNURU; National Review; 9/10/15 4:00 AM

 

Living Constitution, fancy words for judicial tyranny; Posted by Dstarr; News from the Northwoods; 2/15/16 3:22 PM

 

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny; By Tenth Amendment Center; 6/4/12

 

A ‘Living Constitution’ for a Dying Republic; By Mark Alexander; The Patriot Post; 9/16/05

 

JRH 6/4/17

 Please Support NCCR

****************

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

June 4, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed.  Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.

 

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.

 

Based on the original intent of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law.

 

There is no authority granted to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.

 

If President Trump understood all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway.  The courts have no enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.

 

However, the president decided to let the courts decide, and the next stop within days will likely be the United States Supreme Court.  A ruling is expected soon that would, based on their “opinion” and the current misguided view of the Constitution, lift a temporary stay on President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue.  The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction.  It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited.  It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States.  As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.

 

The Democrats have somehow equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War II.  The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.

 

As Commander in Chief, among his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to accomplish.  Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed.  If Islam doesn’t want us fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own house (if that is even possible).  The problem is, like the Germans who were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point.  The violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are not in agreement with the violence.

 

We, as a nation, have the right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).

 

While there is no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again, I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . . aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the issue.  Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending.  Trump’s Justice Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.

 

According to Fox News:

 

“The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”

 

The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should.  Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the duties of the President as Commander in Chief.  His job to protect the United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is disgusting, and unconstitutional.

 

The executive order is the second one.  Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March 6.  The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also removed Iraq from the list of countries.

 

Officials say the new executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.

 

The appeals court said its decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning Muslims.”

 

Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

 

Intolerance?  The Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding.  What about Islamic intolerance?  How about we ban mosques in the United States until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues on their lands.  Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite?  What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority countries?  Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?

 

By the way, the law that started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to our national security.  It was passed during a time when we as a country were worried about communist infiltration.  Some Democrats weren’t too happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored law.  Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do you?

 

The court’s attacks against the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their bad constitutional behavior.  Congress should also pass law nullifying each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).

 

The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.

 

The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.  They are not supposed to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or existed) to take care of that.  The judicial branch’s job is clear.  Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear.  If they believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion so that Congress may reconsider the law.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law.  These leftist judges are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.

 

They all need to be thrown off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court – again, an authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.

________________

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:

SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

________________

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com