On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinckema, a Federal Appeals Judge in Virginia, issued an injunction against President Trumps Immigration Executive Orders on the basis that they are in fact, a Muslim Ban.
The Government has argued that the doctrine of Plenary Powers over National Security and Immigration should make the Orders unreviewable. But can such power be given under the Constitution? If the answer is no, then can statements made outside of the Orders by the President and his advisers be taken into account as to the intent of the orders?
If the answer is yes, are we prepared to accept a country where he sitting President has unchecked power which neither the Courts nor Congress can counterbalance?
It’s a Valentines day Tuesday episode of Constitution Thursday!
You have to understand this, Merrick Garland could not lose.
That was my belief, a little less than a year ago. So much so that I did an episode titles, “Merrick Garland Can’t Lose.” But something happened that should have been an indicator – a warning to Democrats and a ray of hope to Republicans. But everybody – even the people who say that they didn’t – missed it.
And now we have a new Supreme Court nominee who is definitely not, Merrick Garland. How do we explain that? What does it mean? Are there lessons we can learn about this from the crash of a Korean Air Cargo 747?
As protests predictably erupted across the nation, there remained a great deal of confusion regarding the use of the Executive Order by President Trump to initiate his so-called “Muslim Ban.” While the average citizen certainly has his or her opinion, and good on’em for doing so, even Members of Congress expressed their opinions about the Order. The problem is that their opinions are made for TV, not for the law which they themselves passed. Read the rest of this entry