More Judicial Tyranny: Maryland Judge May Order Trump to DOUBLE 50,000 Refugee Limit

He can’t order any such thing. Beyond his powers.

http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/obamas-mother-law-charged/

First Amendment controversy brews over Texas high school’s prayer room
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/19/first-amendment-controversy-brews-over-texas-high-schools-prayer-room.html

Trump: Judge, you are FIRED.

A Judge exceeding his authority and dictating to the POTUS what he thinks (prompted by Obama) the amount of economic deadbeat, low IQ, Never assimilate, hate Westerners,possible murdering muslims should be allowed into the country.. I THINK NOT!!! This imbecile needs to be squashed like a bug

Mystery assassinations required of judges

Time for Congress to belly up to the bar and start impeachment proceedings against these radical leftist judges. THat moron has no authority to compel President Trump to carry out an executive order by the idiot president and traitor Obozo the Lesser.

The Constitution gives absolute authority on who come and goes into this country to the Executive branch (the President) of government, not the Judicial branch (the courts). The judicial branch is only charged with interpreting the laws passed by the Legislative branch (Congress) and cannot prescribe ANY course of action for the President. That this judge knows so little about his constitutional duties should be a red flag for all of us.

On March 15, 2017, in regard to the 3 Judge Panel of the 9th Circuit that overstepped their bounds,
Circuit Judge Jay Bybee of Las Vegas,
one of 44 9th Circuit Judges,
was joined by Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski of Pasadena,
Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan of Sacramento,
Circuit Judge Carlos Bea of San Francisco,
and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta of Pasadena
in making a dissent that was published on March 15, 2017, at:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

Some basic high points of what Circuit Judge Bybee wrote and other judges so listed joined, include:

“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty.” United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950); see also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982).

Congress has the principal power to control the nation’s borders, a power that follows naturally from its power “[t]o establish an uniform rule of Naturalization,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and from its authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” id. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and to “declare War,” id. art. I, § 8, cl. 11. See Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 414 (2003);

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–89 (1952)
(“[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations [and] the war power . . . .”).

…The foreign policy powers of the presidency derive from the President’s role as “Commander in Chief,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1,
his right to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers,” id.
art. II, § 3, and his general duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” id. See Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 414.

The “power of exclusion of aliens is also inherent in the executive.” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543.

In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Congress exercised its authority to prescribe the terms on which aliens may be admitted to the United States, the conditions on which they may remain within our borders, and the requirements for becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.

Congress also delegated authority to the President to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” as he deems appropriate:

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 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. Id. § 1182(f).

Many presidents have invoked the authority of § 1182(f) to bar the
entry of broad classes of aliens from identified countries.2

2
See, e.g.,
Exec. Order No. 12324 (Sept. 29, 1981) (Reagan and Haiti);
Proclamation No. 5517 (Aug. 22, 1986) (Reagan and Cuba);
Exec. Order No. 12807 (May 24, 1992) (George H.W. Bush and Haiti);
Proclamation No. 6958 (Nov. 22, 1996) (Clinton and Sudan); Proclamation No. 7359 (Oct. 10, 2000) (Clinton and Sierra Leone);
Exec. Order No. 13276 (Nov. 15, 2002) (George W. Bush and Haiti);
Exec. Order No. 13692 (Mar. 8, 2015) (Obama and Venezuela);
Exec. Order No. 13726 (Apr. 19, 2016) (Obama and Libya).

…The Supreme Court has said so, plainly and often. See, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 (1976)
(“[T]he responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government.”);

Harisiades, 342 U.S. at 590
(“[N]othing in the structure of our Government or the text of our Constitution would warrant judicial review by standards which would require us to equate our political judgment with that of Congress.”);

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210
(1953)
(“Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”);
Henderson v. Mayor of N.Y., 92 U.S. (2 Otto) 259, 270–71 (1876).

……After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Attorney General instituted the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System.

That program required non-immigrant alien males (residing in the United States) over the age of sixteen from twenty-five countries—twenty-four Muslim majority countries plus North Korea—to appear for registration and fingerprinting.

One court referred to the program as “enhanced monitoring.” See Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 433–34, 439 (2d Cir. 2008) (describing the program).7

7
The aliens subject to the program were designated by country in a series of notices.
The first notice covered five countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. See Rajah, 544 F.3d at 433 n.3.

The aliens subject to the program filed a series of suits in federal courts across the United States. They contended that the program unconstitutionally discriminated against them on the basis of “their religion, ethnicity, gender, and race.” Id. at 438.

Similar to the claims here, the petitioners argued that the program “was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims.” Id. at 439.

Citing Fiallo and applying the Mandel test, the Second Circuit held that “[t]he most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review.” Id. at 438 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

The court then found “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for” the registration requirements because the countries were “selected on the basis of national security criteria.” Id. at 438–39.

The court rejected as having “no basis” the petitioners’ claim of religious animus. Id. at 439.

The court observed that “one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups.” Id.

It added:
Muslims from non-specified countries were not subject to registration.
Aliens from the designated countries who were qualified to be
permanent residents in the United States were exempted whether or
not they were Muslims.
The program did not target only Muslims: non-Muslims from the designated countries were subject to registration.

The Second Circuit thus unanimously rejected the petitioners’ constitutional challenges and “join[ed] every circuit that ha[d] considered the issue in concluding that the Program [did] not violate Equal Protection guarantees.”

…The [3 Judge] panel [of the 9th Circuit Court] was oblivious to this important history.

…So long as there is one “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.

…We are judges, not Platonic Guardians.

It is our duty to say what the law is, and the meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign policy, including the decisions to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to the President and Congress.

We will yet regret not having taken this case en banc to keep those lines of authority straight. ”

— BYBEE, Circuit Judge

chuang, you don’t have the authority for this order, secondly when is your term up ?
Investigate for possible impeachment, Forthwith

Who the Hell would appoint this commie creep to the bench? Dept of Justice needs to throw this clown off the bench!

It was obvious to me that the judiciary had become severely compromised when SCOTUS refused to hear the issue of Obama’s lack of proof of citizenship.