Politics

Trump to Courts: Make America Immigrate Again

Trump approval happy rating healthcareThere isn’t a person from either side who wouldn’t agree that our immigration system is broken. So when Barack Obama was president, the problem wasn’t that he wanted to fix it. The problem was how he went about it. Unilaterally.

“I am not king,” he said in 2010 when liberals pressured him to overhaul the system himself. “I can’t just do these things by myself.” But in 2012, that’s exactly what Obama did. With a swipe of his pen he invented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) out of thin air, dodging the entire naturalization process for millions of minors who were brought to the U.S. illegally. Of course, Obama didn’t have the authority to do it — a fact he himself admitted a year earlier when he told his supporters, that he can’t “just bypass Congress and change the [immigration] law by myself… That’s not how a democracy works.” His reelection came and went — and suddenly, without voters to worry about — he decided that’s exactly how his democracy would work.

Most courts didn’t agree, striking down DACA as efficiently as it had Obama’s other attempts at lawlessness. The only reason it still stands is because the Supreme Court was a justice short when the case arrived in 2016, deadlocking at 4-4 after Antonin Scalia’s death. Now, with Neil Gorsuch on the bench, the odds of DACA surviving are even slimmer. In the meantime, President Trump did what any constitutionally-abiding president would: he responded to Obama’s executive order with one of his own — repealing it. That’s been the standard practice every time a new party enters the White House. The most obvious example is the policy preventing tax dollars from subsidizing abortions overseas (the Mexico City Policy), which ping-pongs in and out of effect depending on who’s in charge.

Now, suddenly, because that person is Donald Trump, the rules no longer apply. Two activist judges have decided that Trump’s powers are more limited than Barack Obama’s, ruling as recently as yesterday that he can’t stop an unconstitutional order with a constitutional one. Brooklyn Judge Nicholas Garaufis sided with state Democrats who argued with straight faces that rolling back DACA was “arbitrary,” “capricious,” and motivated by “racial animus.” Actually, what it’s motivated by is the rule of law – a concept the Obama administration never did quite grasp.

Like most liberals, these judicial activists seem to think that good intentions excuse lawlessness — that somehow, they make skirting the legislative process okay. But, as the Federalist’s David Harsanyi points out, “The Constitution makes no allowance for the president to write law ‘if Congress doesn’t act.'” And even if it did, as this judge seems to think, “Is [this] rationalization in play for all presidents? If Congress doesn’t build a border wall… or act on any of the policies the president views as imperative, is Trump free to circumvent Congress because of D.C. inertia? Those arguing that DACA should stay in this iteration are arguing that Trump should be empowered to do the same. We can’t have a stable government if there are separate sets of rules for Democrats and Republicans.”

Yet unfortunately, that’s the very situation we’re in. Our courts have said they know better than voters, better than the Constitution, and certainly better than this president. That’s particularly ironic, since, for the first time in years, they’re dealing with a White House that actually accepts the limits of its authority. As Harsanyi says, “Nothing [Donald Trump] has done during his term thus far has undermined separation of powers in the way Obama regularly did. If anything, many of Trump’s executive orders have merely rolled back the abuses of the past eight years.” And still, we’ve seen judges trying to run the administration on everything from the military, transgender policy, national security, and immigration. President Obama was quite happy letting the courts govern since many shared his same contempt for the Constitution. Over his two terms, plenty of judges were more than happy to do his extremist bidding on policies he could never pass legislatively. Now, with Donald Trump in office, these same courts are trying to restrict his legal actions as president to protect the illegal actions of the previous president.

It’s a dangerous situation — with one remedy: you. I realize things in Washington are broken and a lot of conservatives are fed up with Congress, but we have to continue pushing forward. Rulings like this one are a sobering reminder of what’s at stake in November. Thanks to Donald Trump, we finally have a president who will push back and appoint solid, constructionist judges to the bench. Without a Republican majority, he’s powerless to stop the out-of-control activism in the courts. And with a vacancy possible at any time in the Supreme Court, it’s absolutely vital that voters finish the job the Republican majority started.

If the courts continue on this path, it won’t matter which party’s in power or who sits in the Oval Office. We’ll be turning the keys to our nation over to the unelected activists in black robes. And there’s no telling how long the constitutional process would survive it.

From - Family Research Council - by Tony Perkins

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Outside Contributor
Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SARGE
3 years ago

I don’t think so. Once they start using the nuclear option everytime they don’t get to 60 there’ll be no stopping. The dems will use it when they’re back in power, cause they will be back in power someday, maybe soon, hopefully not. Just like all the executive orders, whats gonna happen to them? You know we do government more than every 4-8 years. Geez Paul, is it just me? Am I the only guy that disagrees with you on a consistent basis?

Rik
3 years ago
Reply to  SARGE

Sarge, what happens if and when the Progressively Communist Democrats get back in power in the Senate that they refuse to use the nuclear option and then they discard the filibuster rule? They will do everything and anything to advance their Communist agenda. We’ve already seen Obama just ignore the Constitution, we’re still seeing Communist judges trying to use the judicial system to stop Trump from reversing Obama’s illegal executive orders that ignore the Constitution. The ONLY RULES the Commies play by ARE THEIR OWN RULES!!! … Are you forgetting “The End Justifies The Means”? … Trump is trying to undo Obama’s disastrous policies and half his own party is on Obama’s side. If Trump acts like Obama did the Commies scream foul, foul! Too bad, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Arrest or disbar these Commie judges who ignore the Constitution except to advance their own Communist agenda. President Trump needs to stop playing “nice”, arrest and jail all mayors, governors and judges that are ignoring current immigration law and just deport these illegal aliens. I believe the majority of “We the People” will back him up! Enough of this crap already … The Law is the Law!

PaulE
3 years ago

The only reason we have any bottleneck in the U.S. Senate is because Mitch McConnell refuses to use the nuclear option and discard the filibuster rule. That would allow legislation to be passed by a simple majority of 51 votes, which the Republicans currently have until the midterms. The Senate Parliamentarian had already stated early last year, that McConnell is free to do so. McConnell refuses to do so, because he wants to run the Senate his way, which will ensure that Republicans likely lose control of the Senate after the midterms. Unless someone shakes some sense into “Mumbles”. The only problem with McConnell’s “strategy”, if you want to even call it that, is it won’t allow any Republican legislation to ever get passed by the Senate. Democrats will vote for NOTHING that will advance any aspect of the Trump agenda, so the bi-partisanship nonsense McConnell and the other RINOs are holding out for exists only in their minds. The requirement of needing 60 votes in the Senate, in order to get legislation passed per your article, is simply both inaccurate and incomplete. The ONLY thing really stopping the passage of legislation in the Senate is the stubbornness of Mitch McConnell.

3
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x