Ninth Circuit District Judge William Alsup issued an injunction from his San Francisco courtroom to block the Trump Administration's decision to let the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Executive Order lapse. This occurred at the same time that President Trump indicated that he would sign any legislation over DACA that Congress passes. The Trump Administration has waited six months before seeking to impose the policy in order for the legislative branch to do their job.
This ruling strains credulity. Firstly, DACA may well not be constitutional. In 2011, President Barack Obama insisted that he did not have the authority to impose the DREAM Act without the legislature passing it. Yet in 2012, Mr. Obama offered an Executive Order which halted deportations of this class of illegal immigrants while also granting the ability to apply for "temporary" work permits. So a Chief Executive issues an edit not to apply the immigration and employment laws without receiving legislative approbation but it must be upheld because a District Court Judge's judgement on its constitutionality.
But before the Trump Administration allowed DACA to lapse or for Congress to rectify the situation by actually passing a DACA bill, the Ninth Circuit (a.k.a. the 9th Circus) supposedly overrides the Trump Administration's Executive decisions. This is because Judge Alsup's believes that Mr. Trump's rational for exerting Executive will to end DACA was flawed because DACA was constitutional
This follows a trend in Federal Circuit Courts to countermand the Trump travel ban, as well as prohibiting transsexuals in the military. Obviously, Democrats are pursuing progressive politics through sympathetic courts. But these cases infringe on the constitutional authority of the Executive Branch while simultaneously assuming the proper role of the Legislative Branch. The Supreme Court dismissed several claims against the travel ban and allowed the third iteration of the immigration order to go into effect. It is interesting that the Commander in Chief is supposed to have no authority over the troops which he commands, per these activist courts.
Perhaps there needs to be a progressive re-education about our constitutional system and the division of power.
But that presupposes that they care about the rule of law rather than just favorable results for their cause-du-jour.
This ruling strains credulity. Firstly, DACA may well not be constitutional. In 2011, President Barack Obama insisted that he did not have the authority to impose the DREAM Act without the legislature passing it. Yet in 2012, Mr. Obama offered an Executive Order which halted deportations of this class of illegal immigrants while also granting the ability to apply for "temporary" work permits. So a Chief Executive issues an edit not to apply the immigration and employment laws without receiving legislative approbation but it must be upheld because a District Court Judge's judgement on its constitutionality.
But before the Trump Administration allowed DACA to lapse or for Congress to rectify the situation by actually passing a DACA bill, the Ninth Circuit (a.k.a. the 9th Circus) supposedly overrides the Trump Administration's Executive decisions. This is because Judge Alsup's believes that Mr. Trump's rational for exerting Executive will to end DACA was flawed because DACA was constitutional
This follows a trend in Federal Circuit Courts to countermand the Trump travel ban, as well as prohibiting transsexuals in the military. Obviously, Democrats are pursuing progressive politics through sympathetic courts. But these cases infringe on the constitutional authority of the Executive Branch while simultaneously assuming the proper role of the Legislative Branch. The Supreme Court dismissed several claims against the travel ban and allowed the third iteration of the immigration order to go into effect. It is interesting that the Commander in Chief is supposed to have no authority over the troops which he commands, per these activist courts.
Perhaps there needs to be a progressive re-education about our constitutional system and the division of power.
But that presupposes that they care about the rule of law rather than just favorable results for their cause-du-jour.
