{"id":68895,"date":"2017-03-17T07:09:33","date_gmt":"2017-03-17T11:09:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=68895"},"modified":"2017-03-17T07:09:33","modified_gmt":"2017-03-17T11:09:33","slug":"is-trump-getting-ready-to-connect-with-his-inner-andrew-jackson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=68895","title":{"rendered":"Is Trump getting ready to connect with his inner Andrew Jackson?"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1>Trump Could \u2018Go Full Andrew Jackson\u2019 and Ignore Interference from Activist Judges<\/h1>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"by\">by<\/span> JOHN HAYWARD<br \/>\nBreitbart.com<\/p>\n<h2>Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday\u2019s<em>Breitbart News Daily<\/em> to discuss his <a href=\"http:\/\/www.breitbart.com\/big-government\/2017\/03\/15\/robert-barnes-hawaii-obama-judge-rules-muslim-imam-has-special-constitutional-rights-to-bring-anyone-from-terror-countries-into-america\/\">latest Breitbart News column<\/a>, \u201cHawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America.\u201d<\/h2>\n<p><em>Marlow asked Barnes to begin by explaining why Trump\u2019s temporary ban on various terror countries was blocked.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>LISTEN:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/w.soundcloud.com\/player\/?url=http%3A\/\/api.soundcloud.com\/tracks\/312699339&amp;color=ff5500&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" data-mce-fragment=\"1\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe district court judge in Hawaii, who was a fellow law graduate of Harvard law school with former President Obama \u2013 and, in fact, Obama was in Hawaii yesterday before the decision was issued, so some people have speculated on the coincidence of that. But he issued a decision that blocks the ability of anybody to enforce the order anywhere,\u201d Barnes said. \u201cSo he went beyond just the district of Hawaii. He said no state can enforce it. Nobody in any part of the country can enforce it. Nobody anywhere in the administration can enforce it. He issued what\u2019s called a nationwide injunction, and it precludes any application of the order, pretty much, on any aspect of the order, pretty much, until there\u2019s further review.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cHis basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens,\u201d Barnes continued. \u201cEvery court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn\u2019t extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time. Instead, this judge said it did, as long as you had a university here who wanted to assert, quote-unquote, the foreigner\u2019s rights, or you had some physical person here. In this case, it was one of the leading Muslim imams in Hawaii; he wants to bring over various family and friends from the Middle East.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Hawaii judge\u2019s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so <i>because <\/i>he\u2019s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from\u00a0that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAs long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,\u201d Barnes summarized.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSo it\u2019s an extraordinarily broad order. Its legal doctrine has no limits. If you keep extending this, it means people from around the world have a special right to access the United States, visit the United States, emigrate to the United States, get visas to the United States. There wouldn\u2019t be any limit, and the president would never be able to control our own borders. It would be up solely to the whim of a federal judge who effectively delegated it, in this case, to a Muslim imam in Hawaii,\u201d he contended.<\/p>\n<p>Barnes noted that the judge did not \u201ccite any prior decision\u201d that has ever established this astonishing new quirk of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cJust last year, the Supreme Court implicitly said the opposite, when they said your right to association does not include a right to bring foreigners into the United States, in the <i>Din <\/i>decision,\u201d he pointed out. \u201cNow, there were several concurrences, so the binding precedent of that has been left open, but he does not even reference or mention or discuss the decision. He doesn\u2019t even mention the statute, the main statute that gives the president the right to ban <i>any <\/i>alien from the country, for any reason the president deems appropriate, for any temporary time period, that the president yesterday cited in his national speech. Like the prior Ninth Circuit decision, the Hawaii judge never mentions the decision at all.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSo there\u2019s no real legal precedent. He\u2019s taking three or four different concepts that have been applied in completely different areas of law, that only ever have historically applied to U.S. citizens, and he\u2019s magically adding it to foreigners and acting like that\u2019s always been the case when it\u2019s never been the case,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt is a product of what I call liberal law school education that was happening when I was in law school, which is they\u2019re increasingly teaching lawyers to replace objective analysis with their subjective preference, but to pretend their subjective bias was really objective reality, even when it wasn\u2019t,\u201d Barnes said. \u201cThey basically taught you to lie to yourself about what the law really was and what it really stood for.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cObama reflects that, and this judge deeply reflects that,\u201d Barnes asserted. \u201cHe\u2019s someone whose opinion would be taken apart. If it was a first-year law school exam, he would get an \u2018F\u2019 because of how badly he misapplied the law. Unfortunately, in the liberal law school mentality, it\u2019s what they\u2019ve taught people to do. This judge, who\u2019s a relatively recent judge, he\u2019s been on the bench a few years, extended it in that way.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cTo give you an idea of how bad it is, yesterday, five Ninth Circuit judges dissented from reviewing the decision about the prior Ninth Circuit decision,\u201d he pointed out. \u201cThe prior Ninth Circuit decision effectively became moot when President Trump replace his old executive order with the new one, and these five judges said that prior decision was so bad that they needed to vacate the decision and should vacate the prior decision, even though that\u2019s very rare under those circumstances. They referred to the obligation to correct the \u2018manifest many, obvious, fundamental errors\u2019 that went against all the precedent the guy overlooked or neglected in the prior panel decision.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt was one of the harshest condemnations ever issued, and one of its authors was former chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Alex Kozinsky, who is regarded as one of the best and brightest judges from anywhere in the country, even though he\u2019s usually more on the liberal side of the spectrum,\u201d he noted. \u201cWhat they all pointed out is it doesn\u2019t matter what your politics are, the law is clear. There was no basis for the prior Ninth Circuit decision. Well, this Hawaii decision goes further than any court had ever gone before. Hopefully, it will get reviewed and reversed, but in the interim, the country\u2019s safety is put into jeopardy because one federal judge decided to anoint himself the one Supreme Court of the country.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Marlow asked if President Trump had any recourse, other than waiting for a higher court to overturn the Hawaii decision. Barnes suggested he could \u201calways do a true Andrew Jackson, since he was there yesterday,\u201d referring to Trump\u2019s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.breitbart.com\/big-government\/2017\/03\/15\/donald-trump-honors-beloved-president-andrew-jackson-nashville\/\">visit to Andrew Jackson\u2019s grave<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhen the Supreme Court issued a decision, Andrew Jackson\u2019s famous comments were, \u2018Well, they\u2019ve issued their decision; now, they can enforce it,\u2019\u201d Barnes recalled. \u201cHe was the last president to really challenge a Supreme Court usurping authority they did not have.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn this particular context, because it\u2019s a district court decision \u2013 Professor Dershowitz even argued this, earlier in the cycle, when the Ninth Circuit even issued its decision \u2013 was that because there was a conflict between the courts, because you have a court in Boston that actually approved of the original Trump order, a great detailed order, 21-page order, cited by the five Ninth Circuit judges yesterday \u2013 the president would be in his legal rights to say: \u2018There\u2019s a conflict between the courts. Until the Supreme Court addresses this, I\u2019m going to do what\u2019s appropriate to keep the country safe,\u2019\u201d he suggested.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe flip side is if he did that, the media would go on a field day and say the president thinks he\u2019s above the law and is refusing to honor a court order,\u201d he acknowledged. \u201cHe\u2019s more likely to wait for this issue to get adjudicated. It ties his hands, unfortunately, and endangers the country in the interim, but politically speaking, he\u2019s sort of put between a rock and a hard place. His only real alternative is to either go full Andrew Jackson or let it play out in the courts, and in the interim, the order is not enforced.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cYou definitely can do impeachment proceedings,\u201d Barnes said when Marlow asked if there was any course of action that could be taken against the Hawaii judge for abusing his authority.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI do think that all the political pressure put on the courts and all the public criticism by legal scholars and everybody else publicly about these decisions, and how reckless they are, and how dangerous they are to the well-being and safety of the country, and how anti-democratic they are, and how they mirror and reflect the aspects of Obama\u2019s shadow government undermining the government through its Deep State connections and its undemocratically elected officials has real value,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s even reflected in the decision of the five judges yesterday who were so harsh in the criticism of their former colleagues,\u201d he pointed out. \u201cThey mention that the attention drawn to the court is a particular concern to them in jeopardizing the credibility of the court \u2013 because, at the end of the day, America\u2019s courts only have power as long as people respect and believe and have confidence in the independence and integrity of those courts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAs that gets sacrificed, courts lose power, and we may return back to a time and place where someone like President Trump needs to go back to Andrew Jackson and invoke his tradition and legacy in order to challenge judicial usurpation of the safety and security of the country. At the current time, there\u2019s not a lot we can do without being willing to go full Andrew Jackson against the court system,\u201d he judged.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cImpeachment is always an option in the House. Some congressmen could pursue it because of these judges usurping their authority and invading the security and safety of the country, and violating the tripartite branches of power, where the judiciary is always supposed to have respected the president in this area. But right now, there\u2019s not a lot we can do under the current political and legal environment,\u201d Barnes concluded.<\/p>\n<p>He agreed with President Trump\u2019s contention that this level of judicial overreach was unprecedented.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhen you have law professors like Jonathan Turley or Alan Dershowitz or Jeffrey Toobin saying that the prior Ninth Circuit decision \u2013 which did not go as far as this case did, as the Hawaii judge did \u2013 saying it basically is bad law, then you know how bad the law actually is,\u201d Barnes said. \u201cIt\u2019s law that has no precedent, that has no historical application. For example, the Supreme Court and our Congress banned anarchists from coming into the country. It banned people that were Communists from coming into the country. We have always been able to use just mere ideology as a test.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe\u2019ve also favored several religious groups, disfavored other religious groups,\u201d he added, agreeing with Marlow\u2019s example of how the Obama administration treated Christian refugees.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis Hawaii judge is close friends with Obama, may have met with Obama before the decision was issued, is here condemning President Trump from just trying to keep the country safe as to who can come in. Well, if you apply his doctrine legally, how was Obama drone-bombing Americans and all kinds of people overseas? So you don\u2019t have a right not to be drone-bombed, but you have a right to live next to somebody in the state of Hawaii or anywhere else in the country?\u201d he asked sarcastically.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere\u2019s no logic. If you start to apply logically all of the consequences of this judge\u2019s ideas, it goes to places that would destroy the whole concept of borders, destroy the whole concept of nationhood sovereignty, destroy the presidential prerogative to destroy our borders. There\u2019s just no limit to where this judge\u2019s decision could go,\u201d Barnes warned.<\/p>\n<p>He said there is no question executive power has been used in a discriminatory fashion against Christians \u201cfor almost the entire Obama tenure, particularly the Syrian Christians and others who were being actually harassed and persecuted.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Barnes said the judicial action against Trump\u2019s revised executive order dispelled the notion his first order was merely worded poorly or rolled out in a clumsy manner. \u201cNo, the problem is you have Deep State saboteurs, and you have unelected officials who think they\u2019re above the law try to create the law, try to change the law, try to rewrite the law.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe problem wasn\u2019t how he rolled out the prior order. The problem is, the opposition are people who don\u2019t respect democratic elections and don\u2019t respect the limits of their office,\u201d he charged. \u201cThis problem is now right center with the way this judge issued his decision\u00a0and particularly applying it nationally. He prevented every other federal judge, every other federal circuit, from weighing in on the decision because he unilaterally opposed it across the whole country \u2013 which both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have said you\u2019re not supposed to do, in cases just like this,\u201d Barnes said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cJudges think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, however they want. The media will celebrate them. Nobody will do anything negative or adverse to them. And the only person pushing back on it is President Trump,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>___<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.breitbart.com\/radio\/2017\/03\/16\/robert-barnes-trump-could-go-full-andrew-jackson-ignore-interference-activist-judges\/\">http:\/\/www.breitbart.com\/radio\/2017\/03\/16\/robert-barnes-trump-could-go-full-andrew-jackson-ignore-interference-activist-judges\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Trump Could \u2018Go Full Andrew Jackson\u2019 and Ignore Interference from Activist Judges<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-68895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68895","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=68895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68895\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=68895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=68895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=68895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}