Looming Constitutional Crises????


Some 2 bit, Obama judge has stopped the POTUS for the second time. So far neither Federal Judge has a full grasp of the Constitutional authority of the POTUS, neither judge has even a basic working knowledge of the US Constitution.

My suggestion to Trump is to take action in spite of the Federal Judge ruling with is completely outside the scope of of his authority and his attempt to make not just law, but Foreign Policy.

I find it more than frightening that a low level judge cand make a ruling that endangers ever man, woman and child in America because he claims it will impact 1, ONE, Muslim in Hawaii. Of NOTE is the Hawaii has never taken in a refugee, they refuse to accept them!

Hawaii is a extreme far left hate group. The natives, blame the Attack on Pearl not on the Japs, but on America, saying that had we not been there it would have never have happened. On that point I will and must agree, but lets peel back that layer and look to see reality. Had we NOT been in Hawaii, there is a STRONG chance that Hawaii would have been occupied by the Japs and they would have launched their attack on the US from there…do I dare say that occupation by the Japs and our return bombing in WWII would have been far damaging to them that Pearl which ONLY affected the US installation.

Our founders never intended any court to make law or Foreign Policy. Judges are supposed to be judges, meaning they rule upon the context as to whether or the question is in compliance with the law itself, they don’t make up law to fit the answer!


I suggest that Trump do what Jackson did when he received an “order” from a court. Tell 'em, “You made this ruling. Now let’s see you ENFORCE it!”


Not a bad idea. But I have another one.

I just finished reading both the Hawai’i and Maryland decisions. Both are rubbish, as was the decision of the District Court sitting for Washington State back in January. I would use stronger words but the rules that govern the conduct of attorneys prohibits my doing so.

Injunctions are issued on the basis of irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits. Neither of the judges writing either of the decisions made any serious analysis of these factors. The Hawai’i court relied primarily on the impact of the state university system. The Court did not even bother to analyze whether states make a profit on individual student admissions. State-funded colleges, in general, actually lose money.
If it is proper for the courts to analyze campaign rhetoric to establish an improper, i.e. discriminatory motive, I would love to see the rules changed to allow the judges to be examined on whether they are part of the movement to “resist” Donald Trump. Perhaps the Solicitor General should seek to depose all three judges on their thought processes if they’re going to play armchair psychologist as to the President’s motives.