“We do not have judicial supremacy in this country,” Miller had argued at the time.

“That was the worst performance out of anybody,” Scarborough said. “That was horrendous. An embarrassment.”

It's not an embarrassment at all. I am sure it is quite horrifying to those who would like to rely on the judiciary to thwart the will of the people.

Truth is, the power of judicial review is not unlimited. It is limited by custom. Historically, the judiciary does not overreach too far in directly challenging the Executive or Congressional power, to avoid the head on confrontation that would destroy the prestige of the judiciary.

Historically, the judiciary has generally exercised deference. But in the two major instances that it did not show deference: during the Civil War (when it attempted to reverse Lincoln's arrest of those who published material favorable to the secession), and during the New Deal (when the Supreme Court, for a year, overturned all of FDR's reforms), the President stood up to the court and forced the court to back down.

In Lincoln's case, he didn't really force the court to back down. He simply ignored it. Disregarded its edicts. The court was rendered impotent, useless and powerless. The court has no army and no control over budgets. It has no enforcement arm. So if a President simply defies the court and plows ahead, all the court can do is complain, and hope that Congress will impeach the President. If the President is popular with Congress, then the authority of the Supreme Court is simply crushed, and everything the court opines becomes subject to an executive veto, because the court has no power over either the sword or the pen, only of persuasion.

In FDR's case, FDR threatened to simply pack the court with new justices, expanding it greatly in size and neutralizing its majority. The majority decided that any further resistance was futile, so they reversed their position and upheld the new deal in the famous (or infamous) "Switch in time that saved nine".

The Ninth Circuit egregiously overstepped its authority by issuing a ruling it did not have the power to do. It presumed to step in and take control of immigration policy. The desire, now, of the Ninth Circuit to hear this case "en banc" shows the degree to which SOME of the Ninth Circuit judges realize that the 3-judge panel essentially handed Trump the power to provoke a constitutional crisis that he will win. All he needs to do now is to overrule the Court, stating that the Court has acted unconstitutionally, exceeding its power. Instead of appealing the decision, which would acknowledge in a sense that this was a proper place for the judicial power, he could just overrule the decision outright, stating, as a constitutional principle, that the Court HAS NO POWER over this subject.

The Court has no means to enforce its will, and the Executive agencies will back the President.

If the Congress does not impeach (and it won't), and instead moves to break up the Ninth Circuit or otherwise curtail the appellate authority of the Courts, the Ninth Circuit will have, by declaring war on the President, reduced the entire power of the judiciary by finally taking on a President who would not back down, and who crushed the courts and limited their power.

For my part, I hope that is exactly what Trump does.

I hope that the Senate wipes out the filibuster, stripping the Democrats of even the power of delay, and I hope the President crushes the court by disregarding its constitutional order, with the backing of Congress, establishing a joint Executive/Congressional oversight of judicial opinions that will put the Court back down in its place and end the charade that the courts are superior in authority to the other two branches of government.

By choosing this battle on immigration, the Ninth Circuit may well have led the judiciary over a cliff from which it cannot return, and the result may well be that the power of judicial review of Presidential and Congressional acts is henceforth subject to Presidential and Congressional veto, which is the way it should have always been.

The Left is trying to use the precedents to thwart the will of the people. It is necessary, therefore, to erase the precedents - end the filibuster, and subject the courts to political review.

so they reversed their position and upheld the new deal

Liars ssumbags and pieces of shit supported the new rip off raw deal lie that gave birth to the parasite class.

Someone should have pushed that kook FDR down the stairs.

Liars ssumbags and pieces of shit supported the new rip off raw deal lie that gave birth to the parasite class.

Someone should have pushed that kook FDR down the stairs.

The New Deal saved the American economic and political system.

But critics have pointed to a series of troubling statements by Miller that displayed contempt for basic constitutional principles and, like Trump’s more prominent spokesperson Kellyanne Conway, reek of dishonesty.

Fake News Bullshit!

I watched the entire interview....Stephen Miller's responses were superb and right on target.

The New Deal saved the American economic and political system.

I disagree. Stealing gold and making people use paper is evil.

I would add this to my comment. NOt only liars, scumbags..., but also just ignorant people who didn't know. I should have been clear that my harsh statements were directed at the people who created and implemented the new deal and not the masses of desperate people, some of which were ignorant.

On another thread you reminded us that charity begins at home. This well-worn instruction is often attributed to the New Testament when in fact this advice comes to us from Sir Thomas Browne, an English theologian, physician and writer in a work he wrote in 1642. It's an admonition lost that jug-eared ex- resident of the White House.

The DIRTY SECRET hidden in the immigration/refugee discussion is that NGO's and churches are flooding small towns in the US with refugees who by and large have neither need skill sets nor the necessary socialization to fit into small town life in this country. Populations are being introduced into smaller municipalities that are not equipped to deal with the language problems, social dislocations and diseases common to the countries that these migrant come from. Most of those countries are of course the nations on Trump's list. Tuberculosis, which was virtually stamped out here is once again epidemic in small town Minnesota, mostly introduced through the forced importation of Somalis. Amarillo, Texas is struggling to cope with 22 different languages spoken in their schools. Some migrants have to be taught to use the flush toilet.

And in a pattern that closely follows the program imposed on Swedes and Germans, the vast majority of refugees and asylum seekers that are being introduced are Muslim. Despite the desperate situation of Christians in those countries whose congregations are suffering exile and extermination, the proportion of Christians admitted is miniscule. Of nearly 7,000 Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. only 23 were Christians. It's plain that NGO's and churches are allowed to discriminate. If the government on the other hand even begins to suggest that we look at the sectarian mix of these populations, it's a huge "establishment clause" issue. Federal judges will question the right of the executive to undo what private interests have done.

Speaking of private interests, if you're a parishioner at a mainline church, your national governing body quite likely has a hand in this. You should ask your pastor, priest or deacon what your church's charitable organizations are up to. If you don't attend church, maybe you should be writing your legislators. This is not France or Sweden or Denmark or Germany or Italy. We have lots of problems that need fixing right here at home before we begin inviting guests here that will have problems fitting in.

Read more at www.wnd.com/2016/02/so-it...re-u-s-city-overrun-with- criminal-refugees/#px2Zu0LpLlTUByIL.99

www.breitbart.com/big-gov...3/two-hundred-ninety-six- refugees-diagnosed-active-tuberculosis-minnesota/

www.cnsnews.com/news/arti...h/administrations-syrian- refugee-target-passes-23-mark-03-percent

I disagree. Stealing gold and making people use paper is evil.

That could be. But it's precedent. It happened before, and if need be, it will happen again.

There is also precedent for slavery.

There is also precedent for slavery.

Of course. That's what prison labor is: slavery. The 13th Amendment lets us still have slavery in punishment for crime. I'm fine with that. In fact, I think we should be using prison slaves to pick the crops and not importing Mexicans to do it.

And if the prisoners refuse to work?

"He who will not work, shall not eat."

But we have to feed them properly, of course, and make sure they have water and food and other medicine.

Agricultural work is straight up free person work, not torture, so making prisoners do it is not evil, it's necessary, it's good for the economy.

And farmers can pay a regular wage to the prison system for the labor, dramatically reducing the cost of prison.

Want to grow crops...like weed? Well, that's illegal, but HERE are all the crops you could ever dream of: get picking!

And to avoid post-prison unemployment, I'm even willing to have post-prison farms, to have ex-cons set up in a basic farming co-op structure, with land and seeds and the like. Let them use those agricultural skills they build up working off their sentences. Teach them the ropes of farming. Keep them out in the country working hard, and not in the city causing new crime.

according to The Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler.

according to The Washington Post’s fact-checker FAKE NEWS CHECKER Glenn Kessler.

There, fixed it.

Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the President to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned..."

Stephen Miller
White House Policcy Adviser

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-ii/part-ii/section-1182/

Inadmissible aliens - 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (2013)

8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (2013)

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/PDFs/research/portals/66stat163.pdf

Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, Section 212(e), 66 Stat. 163, 188 (1952), P.L. 414

Suspension of entry by President

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.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/698/

Fong Yue Ting v United States, 149 US 698 (1893)

Syllabus

The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Syllabus

The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation.

In the United States, the power to exclude or to expel aliens is vested in the political departments of the National Government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far as the Judicial Department is authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the Constitution, to intervene.

The power of Congress to expel, like the power to exclude, aliens, or any specified class of aliens, from the country, may be exercised entirely through executive officers; or Congress may call in the aid of the Judiciary to ascertain any contested facts on which an alien's right to remain in the country has been made by Congress to depend.

Congress has the right to provide a system of registration and identification of any class of aliens within the country, and to take all proper means to carry out that system.

The provisions of an act of Congress, passed in the exercise of its constitutional authority, must, if clear and explicit, be upheld by the courts, even in contravention of stipulations in an earlier treaty.

Section 6 of the act of May 5, 1892, c. 60, requiring all Chinese laborers

149 U. S. 699

within the United States at the time of its passage, "and who are entitled to remain in the United States," to apply within a year to a collector of internal revenue for a certificate of residence, and providing that anyone who does not do so, or is afterwards found in the United States without such a certificate, "shall be deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States," and may be arrested by any officer of the customs, or collector of internal revenue, or marshal, or deputy of either, and taken before a United States judge, who shall order him to be deported from the United States to his own country unless he shall clearly establish to the satisfaction of the judge that, by reason of accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, he was unable to procure his certificate, and "by at least one credible white witness" that he was a resident of the United States at the time of the passage of the act, is constitutional and valid.

OPINION of the Court at 705:

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court.

The general principles of public law which lie at the foundation of these cases are clearly established by previous judgments

149 U. S. 705

of this Court, and by the authorities therein referred to.

In the recent case of Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 142 U. S. 659, the Court, in sustaining the action of the Executive Department, putting in force an act of Congress for the exclusion of aliens, said:

"It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. In the United States, this power is vested in the National Government, to which the Constitution has committed the entire control of international relations, in peace as well as in war. It belongs to the political department of the Government, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the President and Senate or through statutes enacted by Congress."

The same views were more fully expounded in the earlier case of Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581, in which the validity of a former act of Congress, excluding Chinese laborers from the United States, under the circumstances therein stated, was affirmed.

In the elaborate opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Field in behalf of the Court, it was said:

"Those laborers are not citizens of the United States; they are aliens. That the Government of the United States, through the action of the Legislative Department, can exclude aliens from its territory, is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens, it would be, to that extent, subject to the control of another power. . . . The United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory."

130 U.S. 603, 130 U. S. 604.

It was also said, repeating the language of Mr. Justice

149 U. S. 706

Bradley in Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall. 457, 79 U. S. 555:

"The United States is not only a Government, but it is a National Government, and the only Government in this country that has the character of nationality. It is invested with power over all the foreign relations of the country, war, peace, and negotiations and intercourse with other nations; all of which are forbidden to the state governments."

130 U. S. 605. And it was added:

"For local interests, the several States of the Union exist; but for international purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power."

130 U. S. 606.

The Court then went on to say:

"To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation; and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character, or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us. The Government, possessing the powers which are to be exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth; and its determination, so far as the subjects affected are concerned, is necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and officers. If, therefore, the Government of the United States, through its Legislative Department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity of the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity, in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must also determine it in the other. In both cases, its determination is conclusive upon the Judiciary. If the Government of the country of which the foreigners excluded are subjects is dissatisfied with this action, it can make complaint to the

149 U. S. 707

executive head of our Government, or resort to any other measure which, in its judgment, its interests or dignity may demand, and there lies its only remedy. The power of the Government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the Executive or Legislative Departments."

130 U.S. 130 U. S. 606-607. This statement was supported by many citations from the diplomatic correspondence of successive Secretaries of State, collected in Whart. Int. Law Dig. § 206.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -