Biblical and Constitutional Politics
Validating My Politics Website
(The Economy, Government Corruption, SCOTUS, and Illegal Immigration)
Part Two
This article is continued from Validating My Politics Website (The Economy, Government Corruption, SCOTUS, and Illegal Immigration) – Part One.
SCOTUS Ruling on Trump’s Travel Ban
The final SCOTUS case to be discussed was a bit different from the preceding ones. It concerned President Trump’s travel ban. That ban had been ruled unconstitutional by lower and liberal courts based on Trump’s statements during the campaign and in tweets since then that were taken as being “anti-Muslim.” The court ruled that this was a “Muslim ban” and thus unconstitutional.
This was the third version of Trump’s travel ban. I commented on each version in various articles, such as Executive Order on Immigration, Eventful Three Weeks in Politics, and Media Meltdown Since Trump’s Inauguration. In those articles, I present the Constitutional and statutory basis for Trump’s travel ban and explain why it is not a “Muslim ban” as the media had been trying to portray it. In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court cited these very reasons for upholding the ban.
In a 5-4 ruling that gave broad leeway to presidential authority, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban that barred nearly all travelers from five mainly Muslim countries as well as North Korea and Venezuela.
The president’s proclamation was “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA,” the court wrote in its majority opinion, referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act…
The court acceded broadly to presidential power. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted that the INA exudes deference to the president… The only thing a president has to signal is that entry for people from various countries would be detrimental to the interest of the United States. The president undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here, the court noted….
The president, Roberts said, has extraordinary power to express his opinions to the country, as well. The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s past campaign and other statements about Muslims should be taken into account, but the majority said it is not the court’s role to do that. (NPR).
The Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, delivering to the president on Tuesday a political victory and an endorsement of his power to control immigration at a time of political upheaval about the treatment of migrants at the Mexican border.
In a 5-to-4 vote, the court’s conservatives said that the president’s power to secure the country’s borders, delegated by Congress over decades of immigration lawmaking, was not undermined by Mr. Trump’s history of incendiary statements about the dangers he said Muslims pose to the United States (New York Times).
Notice how both of these liberal news sources refer to Trump’s supposed “anti-Muslim” comments. But the Court ruled those comments could not be taken into account in ruling on the travel ban. All that mattered was what the Executive Order itself stated, and it did not refer to religion.
The minority opinion objected to this ignoring of Trump’s comments outside of the Executive Order itself. But it would have been a terrible precedent if the Court had considered those comments. It would mean that in future rulings, the Court would have to consider not just the law in question but comments by those who drafted the law, not just while in office but going back to before the law-drafters were even in office. That would have put an undue burden on the Court in having to research back-comments by law-drafters and severely hindered the Court in future cases.
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire
In my article about the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, I wrote, “President Trump very likely will have another crack at nominating a justice.” That proved to be the case when shortly after the last of the preceding rulings was handed down on June 27, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced that he would be retiring on July 31st.
I discuss Justice Kennedy in my Neil Gorsuch article:
Kennedy was then nominated in November 1987, still before the final calendar year of Reagan’s second term…. It was thought he would be solidly conservative but has proven to be the “swing vote” on the court, often voting with the left wing. This has led to many 5-4 leftist votes, such as the recent vote to legalize same-sex marriage.
It is that swing vote character of Kennedy that has Democrats literally wailing over Kennedy’s retirement, as they know President Trump will nominate a solid conservative in his place.
Trump has said he will begin the process of interviewing possible nominees “immediately,” with those candidates coming from his previously released list of 25 candidates. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnel has already announced they will vote on Trump’s nominee before the mid-term elections.
Democrats are already crying “hypocrisy” just as I predicted. That is because Republicans refused to vote on President Obama’s SCOTUS nominee in 2016, saying they should wait until after the election, so as to let voters weigh-in on the nomination. I wrote in this regard:
Many conservatives are rejoicing over this whole situation, but three years from now, it will rightly be pointed out how hypocritical Republicans are if a justice retires or passes away in 2020 during Trump’s reelection campaign, and Trump nominates a justice, and they vote on his or her nomination.
I just wasn’t thinking that Democrats would play this card for the mid-term elections as well. But not only are they saying it is hypocrisy to vote on a nominee before the election, they are also saying they will try to stop the confirmation of any nominee who is “an extremist” or a “right-wing ideologue.” Of course, what they mean by these derogatory terms is someone who is a conservative. What they want is someone who is “in the mainstream of court justices.” By that is of course meant someone who agrees with them and their liberal policies.
That is par for the course for Democrats and liberals. They pin derogatory labels on anyone they disagree with, in order to foster animosity toward them so as not to have to use logical arguments. They used the same tactics against Neil Gorsuch and will do so again.
In my Media Meltdown article, I first quoted the media as saying about Gorsuch, “Trump’s Supreme Court pick is out of the mainstream and will set back civil rights 50 years” I then wrote:
I knew the media would say such things and worse about Trump’s Supreme Court pick before he even announced who the nominee would be. The left already had their playbook laid out. No matter who the nominee was, they would say he was a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, and whatever other terms they could make up. I also knew they would drag up something he said or did thirty years ago as “proof” he was unqualified to be a Justice. And the media has not disappointed me in this regard.
The same will happen this time. But Democrats will lose this fight, as Republicans control the Senate, and with the elimination of the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes as explained in my Gorsuch article, Trump’s nominee will be confirmed. That will be earthshaking, as it will give the Court a solid conservative majority, assuming that the new justice does prove to be a conservative. That is not guaranteed, as Kennedy demonstrated.
But if it does, decisions like Roe v. Wade and homosexual marriage could be in jeopardy. The current Court has already proven it is not adverse at overturning previous SCOTUS rulings, as seen in the labor union case. That is another reason that case was so important. And if that 40-year-old ruling could be overturned, so could the 45-year-old Wade v. Wade case and the new marriage case.
However, the latter case is unlikely to be overturned, given it is such a recent ruling. But it is highly likely the Court will rule in favor of those who do not want to be forced to be involved in same-sex weddings.
It is those possibilities that have Democrats shaking in their boots, but conservatives rejoicing at the prospect of ending the holocaust known as abortion.
But it should be noted, if those cases would be overturned, it would not mean that abortion and homosexual marriage would be illegal nationwide. It would just mean those issues would become what they should always have been, states issues, with each state setting its own rules in regard to these issues in accordance with the Tenth Amendment.
Bus Them Home
In my article Separated Families at the Border: A Manufactured Crisis, I discuss the controversy at the border. Under a section titled, Fixing the Problem, I write:
There are two sure-fire ways to fix the border problem. The first is to take anyone who enters the country illegally, families included, stick them on a bus and send them back home. If they came from El Salvador, send them back to El Salvador. If they came from Honduras, send them back to Honduras. That’s it. No illegal entry, and no families being separated. If they have a legitimate asylum claim, then they can enter at a legal port of entry….
The other sure-fire way to stop all of this is to BUILD A WALL. That would keep all aliens from coming into the country and becoming illegal, it would keep families together, on the other side of the wall, and it would stop the activities of human traffickers. If the aliens have a legitimate reason for wanting to enter the USA, there would be “doors” in the wall at legal entry points for them to file their claims.
That article was posted in the early morning of June 24, 2018. President Trump must be reading this website, as later that morning, he tweeted:
We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents... .Our Immigration policy, laughed at all over the world, is very unfair to all of those people who have gone through the system legally and are waiting on line for years! Immigration must be based on merit - we need people who will help to Make America Great Again!
Then the next day, he tweeted:
Hiring many thousands of judges, and going through a long and complicated legal process, is not the way to go - will always be dysfunctional. People must simply be stopped at the Border and told they cannot come into the U.S. illegally. Children brought back to their country...... .If this is done, illegal immigration will be stopped in its tracks - and at very little, by comparison, cost. This is the only real answer - and we must continue to BUILD THE WALL!
So it would seem President Trump and I are on the same wavelength, even to the point of capitalizing “BUILD THE WALL.” Immediately, the media and Democrats proclaimed this attitude is unconstitutional, as it ignores the due process rights guaranteed in the Constitution. However, in my article Media Meltdown Since Trump’s Inauguration, I wrote in this regard:
… the Constitution begins, “We the people of the United States.” What follows thus applies to us, the people currently residing in the United States. In no way does it apply to those who are outside of the United States but want to immigrate here. Outsiders are not protected by the rights articulated in the Constitution.
As President Trump later indicated, it is absurd to say that if someone “gets one foot on US soil” they must be granted full Constitutional rights. This is not to say those trying to enter the US illegally can be treated inhumanly. They should not be and are not being so mistreated, as I detail in my Separated Families article, never mind what lies the media is telling you.
Dangers from Illegal Immigrants
What the media is not telling you is all of the harm illegal immigration is causing to the country, starting with the thousands of murders that have been perpetrated by illegal immigrants, especially by MS-13 and members of other gangs that enter the country.
That is what I am referring to in my Separated Families article when I write that unfettered immigration, “would alter the danger level of our country, with MS-13 gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers, terrorists, and other dangerous criminals entering the country unfettered.”
I further wrote in my Media Meltdown article:
Meanwhile the Constitution does grant the federal government the responsibility of protecting its citizens (Article 2. Section 2). Not coincidentally, that is also what the Bible indicates is the primary responsibility of human government (Romans 13). As such, it is not unconstitutional for the President to use “extreme vetting” on those he thinks might be threat to the citizens of the US.
To emphasis this point, on June 22, 2018, President Trump hosted many “Angel Families” at the White House. These are mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and children who have lost loved ones murdered by illegal immigrants.
President Donald Trump focused on “American victims of illegal immigration” Friday, hosting family members of those killed by undocumented immigrants at an event at the White House.
President Trump asked the families, who known as “Angel Families,” to tell their stories, hitting back against a storm of criticism over the rescinded policy forcing separation of children from their migrant parents after illegal border crossings. Many of those who were invited to the event held large photos of the family members they lost.
“You hear the other side. You never hear this side. You don’t know what’s going on,” Trump said….
“Sixty-three-thousand Americans since 9/11 have been killed by illegal aliens,” said Steve Ronnebeck, the father of a murder victim. “This isn’t a problem that’s going away. It’s getting bigger” (Fox 5).
That same day, Sean Hannity had two “Angel Moms” whose sons had been killed by illegal immigrants on his radio show. Their stories are truly heartbreaking, as one of those sons had been tortured to death. There were wounds on just about every part of his body, including on his penis.
One of them cited the statistic that 4,300 Americans are killed every year by illegal immigrants. But if you never listen to Sean or watch Fox News, you would never hear about any of this, as no other network or radio show ever reports on it, and both of those mothers said they were never asked to appear on any other show other than Sean’s radio and TV shows.
Moreover, Congress is oblivious to this problem, as they continue to be unable to pass immigration legislation. I predicted such in my Separated Families article, although I put the blame on Democrats, Republicans also cannot get their act together. The problem seems to be that any legislation is too liberal for conservative Republicans and too conservative for liberal Democrats. As such, this issue will probably remain in the forefront through the November mid-term elections.
Incivility
In my Separated Families article, I write the following:
The left has even gone so far as to call ICE agents “Nazis” and ICE a “terroristic organization.” Leftist have even called for Barron Trump, President Trump’s eleven-year-old son, to be locked up with a pedophile, for Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ children to be kidnapped, and for DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to be caged naked and raped in public. Sarah was even kicked out of a restaurant by the owner.
Yes, all of that and more has been said and done by prominent leftists. And they feel justified in their outrageous comments and actions, because they think they are so righteous in their thoughts and President Trump so wrong in his.
Many more such incidents have occurred since I wrote that first paragraph. For instance, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was accosted by three large men while she was waiting in line to see a documentary on Mr. Rogers of all things.
For those who don’t know, Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood was a long-running children’s TV show, based here in Pittsburgh, PA. He was the gentlest guy imaginable and always taught tolerance and had an anti-bullying message in his shows. Yet these three large men were being bullies and anything but tolerant.
A similar situation happened to Kirstjen at a Burger King, with her being chased out of it. Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Watters has encouraged more such harassments, telling her listeners to accost Trump officials “in restaurants, in department stores, at gas stations, and even at their homes” (Hannity).
Here, I’d like to elaborate on what happened to Sarah Sanders. After Sarah and her party of eight left the Red Hen, they went to another restaurant across the street. The owner of the Red Hen then encouraged her patrons to follow them across the street and to continue to harass them, which they did, shouting obscenities at them from the street. That disturbed not just Sarah and her guests but the rest of the customers in that restaurant.
The protestors are justifying this incivility based on the Christian baker case. Since he denied service to a homosexual couple, they feel perfectly justified refusing service and harassing those they disagree with. However, there is no comparison whatsoever to that situation and what happened to Sarah and is happening to others in the Trump administration.
I discuss the Christian baker situation more fully in Volume Two of my God’s Sex Plan set. I write:
… a baker considers his cake decorating to be a work of art, which is a form of expression that is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. And freedom of expression includes freedom to not express….
To be clear, when say a Christian baker says he does not want to bake and decorate a cake for a homosexual wedding, he is not saying he does not want to serve homosexuals in other ways. Most likely, he would be more than willing to bake and decorate a cake for a homosexual’s birthday or graduation or any other occasion other than a wedding or anniversary thereof (pp.33-34).
However, none of this is the case when a restaurant owner refuses to serve a party because of their political views. There is not a form of expression in cooking regular meals, and the party is being denied service in all aspects, not just in one very narrow one.
Moreover, when that homosexual couple left the baker’s shop, he probably thought that was the end of it, as he did not follow them and harass them, nor did he encourage others to do the same. Sarah and her party just went to the other side of the street and to another restaurant, and that would have been the end of that, if it were not for the continued harassment. By that I mean, Sarah had no plans to sue the restaurant or even to mention the incident on social media. It was only after the restaurant owner called her out on social media, that she responded.
In addition, when the homosexual couple left the bake shop, they could have just gone to another bakery and that would have been the end of it. But they did not; they filled a lawsuit, leading to the baker being chastised and nearly shutdown by the Colorado state government that led to several years of court battles and the recent Supreme Court decision.
That said, if this incivility continues, it could very well end up in violence and lead to the “virtual if not actual Civil War” that I warn about at the end of my article Eventful Three Months in Politics: Part Two.
Capital Gazette Shooting
On June 28, 2018, as I was working on this article, a man walked into the Capital Gazette news building with a long gun and began shooting. He killed five news personal and gravely injured several more, before being subdued by the police.
He had a seven year long grudge against the newspaper, due to it having published an article back in 2011 that was critical of him. He sued the newspaper for defamation, but the suit was dismissed. Since then, he had been posting diatribes and threats against the newspaper on social media.
The newspaper had contacted the police, but they were unable to do anything. The former editor had told his employees that if they ever saw the man walk into the building, to immediately call 911, as he would probably be carrying a gun (Fox News). My heart and prayers go out to all of those affect by this tragedy.
But what does this tragic story have to do with this article? It has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Such was never even mentioned when I first heard about this story on the news reports on 1320 News Talk radio station that day and again on Fox News Channel’s detailed report on Special Report the next day.
But true to their mantra, “Don’t let a tragedy go to waste,” some in the media have been blaming this shooting on President Trump. They are saying the shooter was instigated in his actions by Trump calling the news media “fake news” and “the enemy of the people” (Gallagher)
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the shooter was motivated by Trump’s comments. Again, his grudge against the newspaper goes all the way back to 2011, long before Trump even announced his candidacy. But the hatred of the left for Trump knows no bounds, and their illegitimate turning of this story into an attack on President Trump is yet one more item I could add to my two-part article Chronology of Corruption in the US Government and Unjustified Attacks Against President Trump.
Conclusion
I really struggled over starting this Biblical and Constitutional Politics website, as I knew it would be a real time-sapper, as there would always be yet one more political happening to write about. Plus, I knew I would want to research each issue I wrote about carefully, so as to be as accurate as possible and to document everything I said. That is why the articles on this site tend to be on long-side, such as this article expanding into a two-part article due to new events happening as I was working on it. But if you put the effort into reading the each entire article, you will be fully versed on the respective topic.
That time-commitment is why I only write one or two articles per month for this website. But I felt it was important to add my voice to those few other conservative voices out there to counteract the avalanche of left-leaning reporting and commentary that saturate all forms of media. And the month of June 2018 has proven that my efforts are worthwhile, as this website has been shown to be a voice of truth and reason in the wilderness of fake and misleading news that many are being deceived by.
References:
American Thinker. CBO: Government runs biggest monthly surplus ever in April.
American Thinker. No Reasonable Prosecutor Would Bring Such a Case?
CBS News. Highlights of DOJ inspector general report on handling of Clinton email probe.
Chicago Tribune. Editorial: For blacks and Latinos, record low unemployment.
CNN Money. The Federal Reserve plans to hike interest rates even faster.
CNN Politics. How 7 words in the 500-page IG report give Donald Trump all the ‘deep state’ ammo he wanted.
Christianity Today. Christian Baker Wins Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop Case.
Fox 5. Trump hosts “Angel Families” at White House event focused on illegal immigrant crime.
Gallagher. As reported on The Martin Gallagher Radio Show on 1250 The Answer, June 29, 2018.
Fox News Channel. Special Report. June 29, 2018.
God’s Sex Plan. Volume Two. Copyrighted © 2018 By Gary F. Zeolla.
Hannity. The Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast for June 25, 2018.
NPR. In Big Win For White House, Supreme Court Upholds President Trump's Travel Ban.
Reuters. U.S. consumer prices drop, but core inflation firming.
Trading Economies; Inflation. United States Inflation Rate.
Trading Economies; Wages. United States Wages and Salaries Growth.
Washington Post. Supreme Court rules against public unions collecting fees from nonmembers.
WSJ. Wall Street Journal. American Job Openings Now Outnumber the Jobless.
Zero Hedge. “Missing” Strzok-Page Texts From Russia "Insurance Policy" Period To Be Released Momentarily.
Validating My Politics Website (The Economy, Government Corruption, SCOTUS, and Illegal Immigration) - Part Two. Copyright © 2018 By Gary F. Zeolla.
The First Impeachment of Donald J. Trump
This three-volume set covers the impeachment of Donald J. Trump that occurred over the fall of 2019 to the winter of 2020. It was yet one more attempt to oust the President from office by Democrats, who never accepted he won in 2016. A complaint about a phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky led to an impeachment inquiry to begin in early September 2019. Along the way, the corruption of Joe Biden that Trump wanted investigated and which led to the impeachment inquiry is discussed.
The above article was posted on
this website June 29, 2018.
The section on the Capital Gazette Shooting was added the next day.
Alphabetical
List of Pages
Contact
Information
Text
Search
Biblical and Constitutional Politics