Will President Trump be remembered in future years as a leader in the mold of “Old Hickory,” otherwise know as former President Andrew Jackson? If he finally gets fed up with activist judges exceeding their authority and issuing bizarre rulings, he just might. And the decision of a judge in Hawaii to block President Trump’s travel ban might be enough for him to go “Full Andrew Jackson.”
Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his latest Breitbart News column, “Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America.”
Marlow asked Barnes to begin by explaining why Trump’s temporary ban on various terror countries was blocked.
“The district court judge in Hawaii, who was a fellow law graduate of Harvard law school with former President Obama – and, in fact, Obama was in Hawaii yesterday before the decision was issued, so some people have speculated on the coincidence of that. But he issued a decision that blocks the ability of anybody to enforce the order anywhere,” Barnes said. “So he went beyond just the district of Hawaii. He said no state can enforce it. Nobody in any part of the country can enforce it. Nobody anywhere in the administration can enforce it. He issued what’s called a nationwide injunction, and it precludes any application of the order, pretty much, on any aspect of the order, pretty much, until there’s further review.”
That a district court judge can issue a ruling barring the enforcement of the president’s order in any part of the country requires a very extraordinary reading of the law and the U.S. Constitution.
“His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens,” Barnes continued. “Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time. Instead, this judge said it did, as long as you had a university here who wanted to assert, quote-unquote, the foreigner’s rights, or you had some physical person here. In this case, it was one of the leading Muslim imams in Hawaii; he wants to bring over various family and friends from the Middle East.”
Since when does the U.S. Constitution apply to anyone, anywhere in the world? To ask the age-old question, “by what authority?”
“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.
“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.
This goes even beyond the term “activist judge.” What this judge has done is create law to suit his personal preferences and prejudices without any basis other than his will.
Where does former President Andrew Jackson come in?
Marlow asked if President Trump had any recourse, other than waiting for a higher court to overturn the Hawaii decision. Barnes suggested he could “always do a true Andrew Jackson, since he was there yesterday,” referring to Trump’s visit to Andrew Jackson’s grave.
“When the Supreme Court issued a decision, Andrew Jackson’s famous comments were, ‘Well, they’ve issued their decision; now, they can enforce it,’” Barnes recalled. “He was the last president to really challenge a Supreme Court usurping authority they did not have.”
Barnes pointed out the dangers of President Trump doing this as the liberal media and its allies in Congress would go berserk, accusing President Trump of tyranny and of acting like a dictator. He basically questioned whether it would be worth the turmoil that would result were Trump to to ignore the judge, or whether it would be better for him to allow the decision to work its way through the appeals process. Barnes concluded that the latter is the best approach.
As Barnes points out:
“I do think that all the political pressure put on the courts and all the public criticism by legal scholars and everybody else publicly about these decisions, and how reckless they are, and how dangerous they are to the well-being and safety of the country, and how anti-democratic they are, and how they mirror and reflect the aspects of Obama’s shadow government undermining the government through its Deep State connections and its undemocratically elected officials has real value,” he said.
“That’s even reflected in the decision of the five judges yesterday who were so harsh in the criticism of their former colleagues,” he pointed out. “They mention that the attention drawn to the court is a particular concern to them in jeopardizing the credibility of the court – because, at the end of the day, America’s courts only have power as long as people respect and believe and have confidence in the independence and integrity of those courts.”
“As that gets sacrificed, courts lose power, and we may return back to a time and place where someone like President Trump needs to go back to Andrew Jackson and invoke his tradition and legacy in order to challenge judicial usurpation of the safety and security of the country. At the current time, there’s not a lot we can do without being willing to go full Andrew Jackson against the court system,” he judged.
At some point, President Trump, supported by the American people, may have just had enough of judicial tyranny such as what we are witnessing. At that point, we might see a reappearance of “Old Hickory” in the form of Donald Trump.
Sources: Breitbart
The Obama’s spent about $96 million over 8 years on vacations. That’s about $12 million a year.
Trump’s already spent about $18 million after 2 months. And taxpayers are paying an EXTRA $1 million a day so his wife can stay away from him in New York. That’s $365 million a year and will eventually amount to almost $1.5 Billion over 4 years.
But Meals on Wheels, PBS, After School Care for poor kids, etc are extravagances????
Well Obama doubled the national debt…your numbers don’t add up there Eric, just ramblings of a petulant child.
Well yeah Obama did it all I meant we did have a Republican Congress 12 at the last 16 years but it was Obama did it all he spent money like a drunken sailor how many wars did he pay for
He went to Hawaii at his old house almost every weekend didn’t care how much it cost long as he got to go to his private home and I had to pay rent for him to be there it was all good
Meals on Wheels, PBS, NPR, etc. Are NOT provided for in the Constitution. Not to mention the simple fact that the money just isn’t there anyway.
Melania’s moving to the WH after the school term. Please forgive her for caring so darned much about her son. And Trump’s “vacations” (they’re called “weekends” around here, maybe you’ve heard of them?) are still spent working. Unlike barry o’s extended family excursions.
Soooo. If this judge is muslim and thinks because he’s Muslim that he has the right to apply our constitution laws to muslims of other countries that means when muslims come here their laws apply to us?
Hummmmm
You sound like Sean Hannity Stumblin bubble around the fox you’re right though we need more bombs maybe a couple more wars it’s what Republicans love to do and then pass the buck onto the next Democrat
Obama ignored laws he didn’t like. Why not?
pop the pineapple