Jack Rakove, Original Meanings

Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

Nice Second Amendment Lady

Seen on Twitter:

Got petitioned to sign a ban on assault rifles. Lol. pic.twitter.com/3lmy4SqYqT

— Anna Paulina (@_annapaulina_) June 11, 2018

Supreme Court Upholds President Trump's Travel Ban

I'm positively giddy with today's decision out of SCOTUS.

I'm especially pleased because it's a huge defeat for the radical left.

At USA Today, "Supreme Court upholds President Trump's travel ban against majority-Muslim countries":

WASHINGTON — A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld President Trump's immigration travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries Tuesday as a legitimate exercise of executive branch authority.

The 5-4 ruling reverses a series of lower court decisions that had struck down the ban as Illegal or unconstitutional. It hands a major victory to Trump, who initiated the battle to ban travelers a week after assuming office last year. It was a defeat for Hawaii and other states that had challenged the action, as well as immigration rights groups.

Trump hailed the decision as vindicating his controversial immigration policies, after first tweeting seven simple words: "SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!"

"In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country," the president said. "This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country."

The president had vowed to ban Muslims during the 2016 presidential campaign and continued his attacks on Twitter after his election. But the high court said those statements did not constitute evidence of religious discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued the opinion, supported by the court's other four conservatives — a majority that has held through a dozen 5-4 cases this term. He said the ban's restrictions are limited to countries previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks. And he noted that Trump's latest version followed a worldwide review process by several government agencies.

"The proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential authority," the chief justice said. Claims of religious bias against Muslims do not hold up, he said, against "a sufficient national security justification."

However, Roberts said, "We express no view on the soundness of the policy." And Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a brief concurring opinion, referred obliquely to the potential relevance of Trump's statements about religion.

"There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention," Kennedy wrote. "That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects."

The court's four liberal justices dissented, and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor read excerpts from the bench, a rare occurrence. Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, found "evidence of anti-religious bias" that he said was worth a second go-round at the federal district court level.

Sotomayor's dissent was lengthier and more strident, and she spoke in court for some 20 minutes. Quoting extensively Trump's words during and after the 2016 campaign, she wrote: "A reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus." She was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"What began as a policy explicitly 'calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' has since morphed into a 'proclamation' putatively based on national-security concerns," Sotomayor said. "But this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact: the words of the president and his advisers create the strong perception that the proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers."

Keep reading.

It turns out Sotomayor was absolutely furious, as were leftist outrage mobsters on Twitter:

Without audio of today’s announcement, there is no way to replicate Sotomayor’s fury in a 20-minute dissent from the bench re: today’s travel ban decision

— Nina Totenberg (@NinaTotenberg) June 26, 2018

Heartbroken over what is happening in our country. What are we becoming as a nation under Trump? We must all fight for our values, and for heavens sake, get everyone you know to the polls!

— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) June 26, 2018

Oh, were we having a little chat about civility? Because the Supreme Court upheld the Muslim ban with a seat that was unabashedly stolen by Republicans.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) June 26, 2018

Separating black and brown families is the policy of this administration. Whether it be stripping babies from their mothers at their border or implementing travel bans - it all hurts. It’s all despicable. #NoMuslimBanEver #StandWithMuslims #EndFamilySeparation

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) June 26, 2018

President Trump Should Defend the Executive Branch (VIDEO)

Kim Strassel had a great column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "How Trump Takes on Obstruction."

She's a brilliant political analyst, and uncompromising against the left. I love her!

At Fox News, with Martha MacCallum:

Mandatory Minimum Age Requirements for Gun Ownership

After ruminating on and endorsing the role of firearms in America's civic nationalism, Ross Douthat proposes age limitations on guns ownership: 18 years old on hunting rifles, 21 years old on "revolvers," 25 on "semi-automatic pistols, and 30 years old for semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15.

He argues these gun control proposals would be specifically geared toward "the plague of school shootings, whose perpetrators are almost always young men."

At the New York Times, "No Country For Young Men With AR-15s."

My Sunday column: No Country For Young Men With AR-15s:https://t.co/madLZI3yGf

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) February 18, 2018

'For marginalized communities, the power of expression is impoverished for reasons that have little to do with the First Amendment...'

Terrible. Disgusting. Reprehensible.

I saw folks retweeting this New York Times piece this morning. It's from K-Sue Park, who's a "Critical Race Studies Fellow at UCLA School of Law for 2017-2019," of course.

See, "The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech." (Safe link.)

Althouse comments:

Contextual... creative... holistic... these are the subtleties that grease the way to the end of constitutional rights.

Thanks to the ACLU for standing up for free speech where it counts — when the speaker is hated.

You can donate to the ACLU here.

Click through to hit that donate button at Althouse.

Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings

At Amazon, Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

Court Rules Kentucky Print Shop Has Right to Avoid Making Gay Pride T-shirts

Good.

Screw the homosexual Nazis.

At WSJ (via Memeorandum and Vox Populi):

Court Rules Kentucky Print Shop Has Right to Avoid Making Gay Pride Shirts... https://t.co/xEoLZoiPgp

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) May 13, 2017

A Kentucky appellate court on Friday ruled that the Christian owner of a printing shop in Lexington had the right to refuse to make T-shirts promoting a local gay pride festival.

The dispute represents the latest court fight testing the limits of antidiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

The cases have led to a number of state court rulings against Christian-owned businesses that refused to bake cakes, design floral arrangements or take portrait photographs for same-sex weddings.

The ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals favored the business owner. A crucial difference in this case was the expressive nature of the service denied: literally words on a shirt.

In a split vote, a three-judge panel concluded that the store, Hands on Originals, couldn’t be forced to print a message with which the owner disagreed.

The dispute started in 2012 when Gay and Lesbian Services Organization in Kentucky asked Hands on Originals to make T-shirts with the name and logo of a pride festival...

Flashback to the Weekly Standard, "You Will Be Assimilated":

You Will Be Assimilatedhttp://t.co/1gu8Ivan7U pic.twitter.com/dguZejRK72

— The Weekly Standard (@weeklystandard) June 26, 2015

James Comey Headlines

It's not a "constitutional crisis." Democrats want to make it into one, but it's not.

Today you gotta just sit back and take cover while the partisan bilge flies.

Headlines:

Trump fires Comey as FBI director: A look at Wednesday's front page pic.twitter.com/6tvIdUxJpa

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) May 10, 2017

On today's #frontpage: @FBI director #Comey's ouster stuns #Washington; #Colleges vexed by rise in #MentalHealth needs pic.twitter.com/740AIPv7t3

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) May 10, 2017

The front page of The New York Times for Wednesday, May 10, 2017 pic.twitter.com/yPEiXwMXgl

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 10, 2017

Eugene Volokh on the Individual Right to Bear Arms (VIDEO)

Another outstanding video, from Prager University:

Gorsuch Nomination Battle May Go Nuclear

Actually, I hope does.

Harry Reid opened the door to chucking the filibuster. Trump's likely to have another nomination this year or next, due to retirements on the Court. Throwing out the filibuster could move the Senate to a straight majoritarian chamber, better reflecting the will of the electorate. Now's the time to do it. The GOP could lock in a conservative majority on the Court for years, if not decades.

At the Los Angeles Times, from day before yesterday, "Democrats are ready to fight Trump's Supreme Court pick as the GOP-led Senate weighs 'nuclear option' on filibuster":

Democrats prepare to fight Trump's #SCOTUS pick as GOP-led Senate weighs #nuclearoption on #filibuster https://t.co/nenGfcw6ea

— Lisa Mascaro (@LisaMascaro) January 31, 2017

After Republicans blocked a string of President Obama’s judicial and executive nominees, frustrated Senate Democrats in 2013 used their majority to change long-standing filibuster rules and allow confirmations with a simple majority.

Now Republicans are considering the same “nuclear option” to confirm President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court if Democrats mount a filibuster, as they appear poised to do.

So while Democrats sound alarms over Trump’s high court nomination and threaten to block it, their ability to actually stop him will be limited, thanks in part to their past willingness to change the filibuster rule when they held power.

Trump plans to announce Tuesday evening his choice for the seat made vacant last year by the death of conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia.

Senate filibusters of Supreme Court nominees are rare, largely because the decision had been seen as too important to be bogged down in partisanship.

When President Johnson tried to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to the position of chief justice, senators filibustered in part over an ethics scandal that eventually forced Fortas to resign. In 2006, Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, tried to filibuster Samuel A. Alito Jr., but the effort fizzled and Alito was confirmed.

Trump has encouraged Republican senators to scrap the filibuster and quickly confirm his choice. “We have obstructionists,” Trump told Fox’s Sean Hannity last week. Asked whether he wants GOP leaders to change the rules for the high court, he said, “I do.”

Without a filibuster, Republicans have enough votes to confirm Trump’s pick, assuming the party is unified. Republicans hold a 52-48 majority.

But if a filibuster is allowed, they’d need Democrats to help reach the 60-vote threshold needed to defeat the tactic.

And Democrats are in no mood to cooperate with Trump. Many remain incensed that Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s choice of Judge Merrick Garland after Scalia’s death, leaving the court with only eight justices for nearly a year.

“This was a stolen seat; it’s not Trump’s to fill,” said one Senate Democratic aide granted anonymity to discuss the situation...

Heh.

It's not "stolen." Democrats are just poor losers. See, "The 'Stolen' Supreme Court Seat."

Plus, still more at the link.

The 'Stolen' Supreme Court Seat

Nobody "stole" anything.

Joe Biden advocated the same alleged changing of the "rules" back when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary committee in the 1990s. Both sides do it. It's just that Republicans gambled on a power-play last year and won a massive and decisive victory with Donald Trump's election. All leftists can do now is scream about "stolen" seats" and about how "Hillary won the popular vote."

God it's pathetic.

But we're in a new era. Democrats just can't stand that they now face a powerful Republican administration, and majority in Congress, that is willing and able to fight by the very rules leftists invented: Alinsky Rule #4, make the enemy live up to its own standards.

In any case, see the childish whiner David Leonhart, at the New York Times (where else?), "Why Democrats Should Oppose Neil Gorsuch":

Democrats cannot play by the old set of rules now that the Republicans are playing by a new one, writes @DLeonhardt https://t.co/gRhzTJQj9U

— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) February 1, 2017

It’s important to remember just how radical — and, yes, unprecedented — the Senate’s approach to the previous Supreme Court nominee was.

Republican leaders announced last March that they would not consider any nominee. They did so even though Barack Obama still had 10 months left in his term and even though other justices (including Anthony Kennedy) had been confirmed in a president’s final year.

The refusal was a raw power grab. Coupled with Republican hints that no Hillary Clinton nominee would be confirmed either, it was a fundamental changing of the rules: Only a party that controlled both the White House and the Senate would now be able to assume it could fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

The change is terribly damaging for the country’s political system. It impedes the smooth functioning of the court and makes it a much more partisan institution.

Of course, the strategy also worked, and the flip from an Obama justice to a Trump justice will likely be the deciding factor in many of the most important cases in coming years.

So what can Democrats do?

First, they need to make sure that the stolen Supreme Court seat remains at the top of the public’s consciousness. When people hear the name “Neil Gorsuch,” as qualified as he may be, they should associate him with a constitutionally damaging power grab.

Second, Democrats should not weigh this nomination the same way that they’ve weighed previous ones. This one is different. The presumption should be that Gorsuch does not deserve confirmation, because the process that led to his nomination was illegitimate....

*****

Finally, the Democratic Party should begin planning its long-term strategy for the court, and that strategy needs to revolve around last year’s events. One option, for example, would be a plan first to deprive a Republican president of one nominee in coming years and second to offer a truce with Republicans.

I understand that all of these options sound aggressive and partisan, and it makes me deeply uncomfortable to make such an argument. But Democrats simply cannot play by the old set of rules now that the Republicans are playing by a new one. The only thing worse than the system that the Republicans have created is a system in which one political party volunteers to be bullied.

It doesn't make him "deeply uncomfortable." Frankly, by a look at his Twitter feed, the dude's reveling in his partisan hatred and demonization of the administration.

Fuck him.

'Never Trumpers' Boarding the #TrumpTrain?

I tweeted last night:

I've argued all along that most #NEVERTRUMPERS are closet leftists. They need to join the #TrumpTrain now or retire. https://t.co/DH9NasGXMZ

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 1, 2017

And today at the Conservative Treehouse, "Sorry #NeverTrumpers but You Don’t Get to Dismount Your High Horse Today…":

Sorry #NeverTrumpers But You Don’t Get To Dismount Your High Horse Today… https://t.co/AyBp2CmNVR pic.twitter.com/0jtXhAcyJB

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) February 1, 2017

Sorry #NeverTrumpers, but you don”t get to dismount your high horse and celebrate the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch today.  This is NOT your victory, this is ours!

There is a gobsmacking level of pontificating self-righteousness visible from the collective proletariat within your crony-conservative movement who made the decision to formulate their political argument from a position of opposition.

Perhaps it would be different if you framed your antagonism from a position of advocacy, but that wasn’t the direction you chose.  No, you chose a specific position of opposition as clearly evident within your chosen mantra “Never Trump”.

Perhaps it would be different if you ever had a come-to-Jesus moment and apologized immediately following the November election.  Then again, when your opinion of your own self-importance is this high, those humble words are just as foreign as your understanding of the movement that won.

You don’t get to frame the entire construct of your argument around opposition to a team, and then claim benefit to the outcome of victory.  Stay on your high-horse, move along and ride off into that proverbial land of irrelevance; you’re dead here.

Save your dismount for another defining “conservative” assembly where you can gather at CPAC again and give a standing ovation to House Speaker Paul Ryan a month after he eliminates the debt ceiling and passes a $2 trillion OmniBus spending bill, funding all of the progressive priorities you hypocritically claim to oppose; you’re good at that.

That particular circle of crazy just doesn’t sell here any longer.

Save up your fiscal hypocrisy, you’ll need it.  Because in less than two months our victorious bastard will deliver a budget that cuts a trillion “per year” out of the federal coffers…. and there is no doubt the beneficiary of your prior applause will be counting on your fiscally conservative sensibilities to protest for more spending on his behalf.

Oh, and keep your newest VAT tax construct.  We’ll bring the sledgehammer, save your gilded and monogrammed tweezers for a swamp audience stupid enough to believe it – Thank you.

Oh, and don’t go getting all pearl-clutchy.  This isn’t anger directed toward you, this is far, far worse.  This is a very targeted and deliberate Cold Anger surrounding you and the swamp creatures of your affiliation. This sensibility never forgets.

You had a choice. You chose a direction, you lost; and you damn near lost the entire friggin’ country.  Just because the team you ridiculed and attacked has overcome all opposition and gained victory, that doesn’t mean you get to backtrack now and expect the bruised and bloodied recipients to forget those who launched the stones and arrows.

Save your wine-spritzers and crust-less triangle sandwiches. We didn’t have well financed high-horses, we launched boots, well-worn boots, scratched, clawed and advanced despite your hoighty-toighty principles, intransigence and unwillingness to cuss or get your hands dirty.

Good grief, your insufferable sensibilities were frightened of frog memes, FROG MEMES!

It was our deplorable and calloused hands that volunteered, opened our piggy banks, and held firm to support each other and our vulgarian candidate against all opposition.  You were part of that opposition...

Actually, Mary Katharine Ham did apologize, but not anyone else that I know of.

Filibuster of Gorsuch Could Doom Senate Democrats in 2018 Midterm Elections

Well, Senate Democrats aren't doing anyone any favors right now. It's all chickens with their heads cut off. And it ain't pretty.

At the Other McCain, "Trump Nominates ‘Worthy’ Judge; Democrats Go Into Full-On Panic Mode":

Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review calls Neil Gorsuch a “worthy” appointee to the Supreme Court, “a well-respected conservative whose legal philosophy is remarkably similar to that of Antonin Scalia, the justice he will replace if the Senate confirms him.”

The “if” in that sentence expresses a contingency that is difficult to estimate at this point. Democrats are still butt-hurt because when Scalia died in an election year, the Republican majority in the Senate refused to take action on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for the vacant seat. Whatever one may think of that controversy, that was last year’s fight and Republicans won it — not only was Donald Trump elected president, but the Garland nomination didn’t hurt the GOP in Senate elections last fall, either. We might therefore conclude that the people ratified the Republican opposition to Obama’s SCOTUS nominee. Yet the Democrats in the Senate evidently don’t recognize the legitimacy of either the Trump presidency or the GOP Senate majority. Many vowed to invoke the filibuster against Trump’s court nominee, even before it was known who the president would nominate...

Yeah, well, like I said, it ain't pretty.

But it's the Democrats we're talking about here. They definitely have not recovered from the November 8th beating. It's going to be a long four years. Long and pretty much hilarious.

Still more.

A Jarring New Level of Confrontation and Conflict?

I don't think so, actually.

We've had hyper-partisan conflict virtually 24/7 since 2009, when Barack Hussein took office, and only slightly less so under G.W. Bush. Going back further, Bill Clinton was impeached in December 1988, by a GOP House that took power after the earthquake midterm elections of 1994. Politics has long become partisan warfare. It certainly seems even more intense now, because President Trump has upended all expectations since he announced his campaign in June 2015, and it's been a relentless roller coaster of political terror for the left ever since.

It's been, what, 11 days since the new regime took over? And with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the populist-nationalist-conservative right is firing on all cylinders. It's unbelievable. The elation you're seeing even among raving critics of Trump during the campaign --- the "Never Trumpers" --- gives you a powerful idea of just how significant the victories for the right are at this moment. Leftists are being devastated. Hence, the Democrat-Media-Complex has a vested interest in portraying the intensity of partisan sniping as unprecedented. The pace is faster, sure, but that's about all. Trump never seems to sleep, and all the up and downs, the volleys and shots he throws across the bow of the collective left, are looking much more carefully choreographed than people thought possible during the campaign. He's just hammering the radical left!

All of this is absolutely breathtaking and I'm just floating right now. If Mitch McConnell announces the nuclear option to get Gorsuch confirmed, in the face of threats of a Democrat filibuster (and amid the boycott today on Trump's cabinet nominations) --- it's going to feel like the freakin' first time, man!

In any case, see perhaps the hardest hit, the New York Times, "A Jarring New Level of Confrontation and Conflict Hits Washington" (at Memeorandum):

The establishment is pushing back against President Trump, creating a palpable air of uncertainty and chaos https://t.co/DYhJzM6j8E

— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 31, 2017

WASHINGTON — President Trump made clear in his fiery inaugural speech that he was going to challenge the Washington establishment. Now the establishment is quickly pushing back, creating a palpable air of uncertainty and chaos in the opening days of his administration.

The new president fired an acting attorney general who refused to defend the administration’s executive order on immigration. Democrats on Tuesday boycotted Senate confirmation hearings to prevent votes on cabinet nominees. State Department employees opposed to the administration were urged to quit if they didn’t like Mr. Trump’s direction.

Even after years of unbreakable gridlock and unyielding partisanship, it was a jarring new level of confrontation and conflict, and it was contributing to a building sense of crisis just as the new president was to disclose the identity of a new Supreme Court nominee — a selection certain to further inflame tensions.

Republicans, adjusting to the new era, seemed blindsided by the rapid pace of events and the worrying failure of the new administration to engage in the information-sharing and consultation that would typically accompany the issuance of a potentially explosive proposal like the freeze on visas for refugees and immigrants from select countries.

“It’s regrettable that there was some confusion with the rollout,” Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters Tuesday, noting that top Republicans learned of the contents of the order only as it was being issued.

That secretive, closely held approach may be the preferred choice of the president and self-proclaimed disrupters like his senior adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, who is quickly emerging as the power in the West Wing, but not by more conventional politicians who definitely don’t like to be caught off guard.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said similar failings had emerged in the early days of previous administrations but would not be tolerated for long.

“You get a brief period you’re allowed for a learning curve, but after that, you have to get your act together,” Mr. King said.

One veteran of past Republican administrations, acknowledging the Trump White House was still in its “shakedown” phase, encouraged the president’s staff to focus more on consultation to avert confusion. “Process matters,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. “You are dealing with not just senior management, but with a variety of constituencies and a board of directors of 535 people.”

Still, the main Republican objection seemed to be with the handling of the executive order by the inexperienced and understaffed White House rather than the actual content of the order...

Keep reading.

#PresidentTrump Nominates Conservative Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

Folks on Twitter can't be more ecstatic about this nomination. It's the home run of Supreme Court nominations, if the reaction is any guide.

Gorsuch! #Scotus

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) February 1, 2017

I'm THRILLED. Home run. #Gorsuch #SCOTUS

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 1, 2017

Mea culpa. I didn't believe him on judges. He done good.

— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) February 1, 2017

Oh my. Nice voice! #NeilGorsuch

— Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) February 1, 2017

Is @chuckschumer going to start crying again? #SCOTUS #SCOTUSnominee #NeilGorsuch pic.twitter.com/XGowqKugs2

— Pamela Geller (@PamelaGeller) February 1, 2017

JUST IN: @POTUS is nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/sIWvre7XhD

— Fox News (@FoxNews) February 1, 2017

Trump chooses Neil Gorsuch, a conservative seen as likely to be confirmed, for Supreme Court https://t.co/qhRjVyuC8D pic.twitter.com/mXh6z0z5zl

— L.A. Times Politics (@latimespolitics) February 1, 2017

Neil Gorsuch could fall somewhere between his hero, Justice Scalia, and former boss, centrist Justice Kennedy https://t.co/2UiBPidkQl

— L.A. Times Politics (@latimespolitics) February 1, 2017

Sebastian Gorka Joins the Trump Administration

I like this guy so much it's ridiculous.

Here's his book, at Amazon, Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War.

And on Twitter:

Another Breitbarter to join WH https://t.co/J02X4IkI1x

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) January 24, 2017

Well the radio silence is over.
Congrats to those who guessed!

Honored to be Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States.
MAGA pic.twitter.com/wgTy70E4jx

— Sebastian Gorka PhD (@SebGorka) January 31, 2017

Sensible Pause in U.S. Entry Policies

From Peter Brookes, at the Boston Herald, "Pause in U.S. entry policies sensible: Trump’s order targets countries with terror risks":

People will spin it anyway they like — and they will — but President Trump’s decision to take a pause and review travel to the United States from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries is sound national security policy.

It’s also completely defensible in these troubled times.

The presidential executive order will temporarily alter visa issuance, immigration and refugee flows to America from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen while U.S. entry programs are examined.

All of these countries have one thing in common: terrorism.

They may have a terrorist group operating within their borders or may have been slapped with the U.S. State Department’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation as a country that uses terrorism or supports terrorist groups.

Of particular importance now is the Islamic State (aka ISIS) which, in my estimation, is in big trouble. The “caliphate” is under significant pressure in Syria and Iraq as forces close in on its key strongholds in Raqqa and Mosul.

For instance, Iraqi forces, with U.S. support, have made significant advances against ISIS since the battle for Mosul began last fall. The going is still tough, but Iraqi forces have reportedly taken back a good chunk of Iraq’s second largest city from ISIS fighters.

While Raqqa is still functioning as the Islamic State’s capital, tougher days are ahead for ISIS there. Syrian Kurdish and Arab forces, with U.S. help, are targeting the terrorist headquarters for a final assault.

But taking Raqqa won’t terminate ISIS...

More.

Open Dissent as State Department Staffers Sign Opposition Memo Against Trump

I tweeted earlier upon seeing WaPo's report:

Dissent memo circulating in the State Department over Trump's policy on refugees and immigrants https://t.co/WIGCPLVWZX

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 30, 2017

State Department employees should resign if they don't support #PresidentTrump. #BreakingNews #MAGA #TRUMP https://t.co/BRKU8sURSt

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 30, 2017

And at Axios, "Hundreds of State employees to oppose Trump travel ban":

Brookings' Lawfare Blog obtained a copy of a draft memo created by "numerous Foreign Service officers and other diplomats" to express dissent to President Trump's executive order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Hundreds of foreign service officers are expected to be party to the memo, which will be submitted through the State Department's Dissent Channel.

Here's the piece at Lawfare, "BREAKING NEWS: Full Text of Draft Dissent Channel Memo on Trump Refugee and Visa Order."

It's hard to remove career bureaucrats. They can't easily be fired. But top people can, especially political appointees. So let's see how it goes over a State this week in terms of Trump's political apparatchiks. They might be able to offer the career staffers deals that can't refuse. Frankly, these long-term Foreign Service hacks are supposed to serve without fear or favor. They're supposed to carry out the policies of the elected administration. They're functionaries. And by dissenting they're violating the will of the American people who voted in a duly constituted election. This is how it works in this country. There should be consequences if this leftist charade goes on too long. Big consequences.

Via Memeorandum.

Debunking the Left's Despicable Attacks on Trump's Immigration Orders

Daniel Horowitz is the author of Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America.

He's got an awesome piece up at Conservative Review, "Separating Fact from Sickening Media Fiction on Trump's Immigration Executive Order."

This is bang-up phenomenal:

A potus acting through congress has the right to do this and its the most settled area of law https://t.co/uLrGBBeeC9 pic.twitter.com/4wvGaDXS0m

— Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) January 29, 2017

Settled law on the right of a nation to exclude or to place any conditions on LPRs https://t.co/ruTPSp0sNY pic.twitter.com/cmvvgCejZO

— Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) January 29, 2017

This is what American sovereignty looks like. https://t.co/xCMJfapqJT

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) January 29, 2017

We are rapidly approaching a time when anything short of mass migration from the middle east will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

— Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) January 29, 2017

“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever risque he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.” ~ Justice James Iredell, 1799.

There is a lot of confusion swirling around the events that transpired this weekend as a result of Trump’s executive order on immigration. Make no mistake: every word of Trump’s executive order is in accordance with statute. It’s important not to conflate political arguments with legal arguments, as many liberals and far too many “conservatives” on social media are doing. While the timing and coordination of implementing this order might have been poorly planned, we shouldn’t allow that to undermine the broader need to defend our sovereignty. For courts to violate years’ worth of precedent and steal our sovereignty should concern everyone.

What the order actually does

Among other things, the key provisions at the center of the existing controversy are as follows:

It shuts off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 90 days from the following seven volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Any non-citizen from those seven countries (not “all” Muslim countries) is excluded from entering the country during this time-period (which usually means they won’t be able to board a direct flight to America). After 30 days, the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security must submit a report to completely revamp the vetting process going forward.

Within 60 days, countries will have to submit any information that the administration determines necessary, pursuant to the findings of this report, in order to adjudicate a visa application and ensure they are properly vetted. Any country that fails to submit this information will not be able to send foreign nationals to our country. All the while, the ban can be extended and expanded at any time.

In addition, the entire refugee resettlement program is suspended for four months pending a complete investigation of the program and a plan to restructure it and prioritize those who are truly in danger of religious persecution. After 120 days, the program may resume, but only for those countries Secretaries Kelly and Tillerson determine do not pose a threat. The program from Syria is completely suspended until the president personally gives the green light.

With regards to refugees and those who seek to enter from the seven countries temporarily excluded, the order gave discretion to the State Department and DHS to admit individuals on a case-by-case basis for important reasons, even during the temporary moratorium.

Statement of principles on the right of a country to exclude non-citizens

Those who want to immigrate: There is no affirmative right, constitutional or otherwise, to visit or settle in the United States. Period. Based on the social contract, social compact, sovereignty, long-standing law of nation-states, governance by the consent of the governed, the plenary power of Congress over immigration, and 200 years of case law, our political branches of government have the power to exclude or invite any individual or classes people for any reason on a temporary or even permanent basis – without any involvement from the courts.[1] Congress has already delegated its authority to the president to shut off any form of immigration at will at any time.

Immigrants already here: Those already admitted to this country with the consent of the citizenry have unalienable rights. They cannot be indefinitely detained. However, they can be deported for any reason if they are not citizens. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), which is still settled law, the court ruled that Congress has the same plenary power to deport aliens for any reason as it does to exclude them and that the statutory procedures and conditions for doing so are due process.[2] Congress has established the process for deportation of those already here. However, as long as a legal permanent resident leaves the country he has no affirmative right to re-enter.[3] Either way, they have absolutely no right to judicial review other than to ensure that statutes are properly followed.

But can Trump prevent those with green cards from re-entering the country?

The statute is clear as day. The Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) gives the president plenary power to “by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.” Clearly, the president has the authority to block any non-citizen – including refugees, green card holders, and foreign students – from entering the country. Also, for purposes of deportation, there is no difference between a green card holder or a holder of a non-immigrant visa. No foreign national who has not yet obtained citizenship has an affirmative right to re-enter the country...

Still more.