Friday, April 27, 2018

The DACA Decision and the Judicial Threat to the Rule of Law

Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
Of all the acts of #resistance to the Trump administration, few have been as brazen and dangerous as a series of lawless and transparently frivolous federal judicial rulings designed to thwart Trump-administration policies. Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Hawaii’s challenge to Trump’s travel ban — a court case in which a federal judge granted standing to a state to file suit on behalf of tens of millions of citizens of foreign countries, and that featured unprecedented parsing of campaign statements to divine the “true” intent of a presidential executive order.
But the travel-ban decisions — as egregious as they are — represent models of judicial restraint compared with the unfolding judicial defiance of the Trump administration’s decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
LINK: Federal Judge Rules That Trump Must 
Reinstate DACA Program
To understand the gravity of the situation, a bit of background is necessary. A president’s authority over immigration law is limited and defined by the Constitution and by statutory law. At no point may he take action that contradicts the Constitution or statutes, and if he intends to enact new policies that are consistent with his statutory and constitutional power, he generally must do so through a regulatory rulemaking process mandated and defined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — a process that requires giving the public notice of a new proposed regulation and an opportunity to comment on its merit and legality.
Read the rest of this NR editorial HERE and follow link below to Ben Shapiro's take on this:

Federal Judge Rules That Trump Must Reinstate DACA Program

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.

No comments: