LAWLESSNESS: 9th Circuit Ruling on Trump Travel ban is an Open Display of Lawlessness

I’ve been blogging for about seven years know, and the law has been one of my primary focal points.  However, since I am not a lawyer, and I do not hold any type of formal law degree, I am often challenged by those who believe the courts can do no wrong.  Well, one does not need to have any type of law degree to know that our courts are lawless.  One only need understand the basic theory of law and logic to see it, and this recent ruling by the 9th Court of Appeals is absolute proof that this court is beyond repair and needs to be dissolved.

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court rules against Trump’s travel ban

Trump Ban.jpg

This court claimed that Trump’s ban violates the ‘due process’ clause.  Well, no!  You see, that clause applies to U.S. citizens, and the people Trump is trying to keep out of this country are not U.S. citizens.  How do we know this is true?  Because a U.S. citizen would not need to get a VISA, they would already have a U.S. passport.  And how do we know this clause does not apply to non-citizens?  Because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not in Iran telling the Mullahs that they cannot execute homosexuals without due process; or stone women accused of adultery without due process.  You see, if this clause applies to non-citizens still in another country simply because they want to enter the United States, then it applies to these people who are being killed by their governments.  And if you doubt that, just ask them as they are about to be executed if they would rather come to the U.S.  What do you think they would say?  So why isn’t the 9th Circuit Court going after the Mullahs, the Chinese, Putin and North Korea?  Because the Constitution does not apply to aliens — and the court knows it!

Then we have the little problem of the law Trump used to issue his ban.  The wording of this law specifically permits the President to take this action, and if it didn’t, the Constitution sure does.  You see, the Constitution strictly charges the President with protecting the security of the United States.  So Trump simply has to declare the people from this region of the world to be a threat to the security of this nation and he can ban them from entry.  This is pretty simple and straight forward, and it cannot be ‘unconstitutional’ for the simple fact that the Constitution cannot be construed as to contradict itself.  Besides, no one told Obama he was violating the Constitution when he did the exact same thing — because he wasn’t.  That’ because this recent ruling is about politics, not the law.

Now, let’s drive home my claim that the courts — especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — are lawless and rules according to their political agenda and not the law.  The ‘courts’ have pointed to wording that is not in the Constitution to create a ‘wall of separation’ out of whole cloth.  As construed and applied, this is actually unconstitutional.  We know this because the author of the First Amendment told us so!  This is in the Congressional and historic record, so it is a known fact, not speculation or ‘opinion.’  And that means the courts do not have a choice: they must apply the law according to original intent, or they act outside their authority (i.e. lawlessly).  Thus, we have shown that the courts are lawless.  Now let’s look at two cases that clearly illustrate just how lawless they have become.

According to our lawless courts, it is ‘unconstitutional’ for Christians to pray public prayers that reflect their own personal faith and beliefs. [Doe v Santa Fe I.S.D., 1995; Furley v Aledo I.S. D., 1999; Bacus v Plo Verde U.S.D., 2002; Rubin v City of Burbank, 2002; Wynne v Town of Great Falls, 2004; Hinrichs v Bosma, 2005; Doe v Tangipahoa Parish Sch Bd, 2006; Turner v City Council, 2006].

At the same time, the ‘courts’ in nine Western States have ruled that it is ‘constitutional’ to force — force — public school children to attend a mandatory, three-week indoctrination into Islam in which all junior-high students must pretend they are Muslims and offer prayers to Allah! [Eklund v Byron U.S.D., 2005 and Newdow v U.S. Congress, 2002].

Dear reader, these two rulings are direct contradictions of each other.  This is because they have nothing to do with the law or the U.S. Constitution.  These rulings were made by activists pushing their political agendas from the bench.  What;s more, they have shown a decided hostility toward Christianity — the very faith the author of the First Amendment said the Amendment was specifically written to protect — while protecting a subversive political ideology masquerading as a religion (Islam).  In fact, it is a known fact that the founders — and, therefore — original intention of the Constitution was to specifically deny atheists into public service and to allow Muslims to rule only if and when Christianity had been totally abandoned by the People.  Again, the courts know this, they simply do not care.  This is because they are lawless — period!  And I have just demonstrated this point very clearly, and in a way that cannot be logically countered without denying the reality of what the courts have done.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s