Defending the Commander-in-Chief
President Donald Trump’s executive order creating a temporary travel halt from certain countries - asininely labelled a “ban” by the asinine Left - is back in the news as the Supreme Court of the United States looks to consolidate and review lower court rulings.
According to the court, parts of the executive order may proceed until the entire issue is reviewed and ruled upon. The order would institute a 90-day travel halt on people entering the United States from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Existing visas are honored.
As I have written in a previous piece, the President’s executive order is wholly within his purview to draft, and in line with U.S. immigration law. Neither does it stretch the boundaries of constitutionality.
Why is that? Because the executive order concerns itself with two executive branch policy areas: immigration and national security. According to the U.S. Constitution, the president has authority to regulate the flow of aliens in and out of the country.
However, the order has less to do with regulating mass immigration than it does with blocking murderous aliens from entering the country and wreaking havoc on its citizens. Thus the halt is, at its core, a national security prescription - precisely the thing we expect from the commander-in-chief of America’s military and top law enforcement forces.
Imagine the legal ramifications of a SCOTUS ruling against the White House. If a majority of five justices determined a statutorily lawful, reasonable, and constitutional executive order is illegal, they would in effect nullify Article II of the U.S. Constitution:
What would these five justices rule against? That an executive does not possess executive power? That said executive cannot, in the course of his duties as commander-in-chief, determine what constitutes a threat to American security? Or that he lacks the power to execute his oath to protect and defend the Constitution by taking necessary steps to mitigate threats from its enemies, foreign and domestic?
And if the president is not entitled to legally pursue these duties, who is? The Congress? The Supreme Court? Perhaps states should be told they must look after their own defense.
Such is the absurdity of the case before us. At a moment’s notice, five men and women may decide to undo centuries of constitutional government and rob the President of his power to govern - all because his name is Trump in an anti-Trump year.
With a conservative majority, of course, there is little reason to think the case will go against the White House. That it’s gotten this far, however, paints a picture of a country now made up of many nations, each of which wants its own laws, culture, and values.
Make no mistake, this is Left-wing politics masquerading as a righteous crusade against the ‘tyrant of Washington.’ It is the Democratic Party setting its own interests before the nation’s security. And it is a Supreme Court that’s taken upon itself the heavy burden of transforming a constitutional republic into a legalistic oligarchy, run by a cabal of geriatrics savvy to popular, progressive culture. This is what conservatives mean when we rail against legislation from the bench.
A country set on warring with itself cannot hope to compose a sound foreign policy, for it cannot hope to even defend itself. We should all pray for a speedy end to this ludicrous case, so President Trump can get back to his job: killing our enemies and keeping us safe.