Tags: Donald Trump | Immigration | Law Enforcement | Supreme Court | precedents | redrafted

Trump Must Put Country First, Revise Executive Order

Trump Must Put Country First, Revise Executive Order

(Clayton Machado Gallego/Dreamstime) 

By Friday, 10 February 2017 01:55 PM Current | Bio | Archive

According to three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, legal precedents by the Supreme Court doomed President Trumps executive order limiting entry to our country.

This decision creates a conundrum for the Trump administration.

They may very well win if and when the case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if Judge Neil Gorsuch is sitting in the 9th seat. The Circuit Court decision, despite its unanimity, is questionable on the law. It extends constitutional protections to foreigners who have never been in the U.S., have no connections to our country, and have no constitutional right to come here.

Consider a family from Yemen, who apply for a tourist visa and are turned down.

They couldn’t hire a lawyer to bring a lawsuit in the U.S. and expect to win.

The courts would rule that they had no "standing" or viable legal claim.

Contrast that family with one already here on an academic visa or with a green card, who are deported or refused re-entry after a trip back to their home country.

They would have standing and a plausible claim that their exclusion violated their constitutional rights. But the 9th Circuit refused to distinguish these cases, ruling instead that the executive order was probably unconstitutional as to all who seek to enter the U.S. from any of the seven countries originally designated by the Obama administration.

This ruling went beyond what even the State of Washington asked the Federal District Court to declare unconstitutional. It also extended the concept of standing well beyond existing precedents.

And it interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment  — "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" — more broadly than any previous court, relying on campaign rhetoric by candidate Trump and a media interview with Rudy Giuliani.

The bottom line is that the Trump administration would have a good chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, if they can get the Supreme Court to decide the case on its merits. Totally victory would not be a certainty even in the High Court, but partial success might well be achieved.

The problem for the Trump administration is that it would take time for the case to reach the high court. In the meantime, the executive order would remain inoperative as a result of the stay ordered by the District Court and affirmed by the 9th Circuit.

It is unlikely — though not impossible — that the stay would be lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court or by an en banc decision of a larger number of judges of the 9th Circuit.

But if it isn’t, the stay could remain in effect for many months.

Hence the Trump conundrum.

President Trump has said that enforcing his executive order is necessary to protect our national security. "The security of our nation is at stake." He has even gone so far as to claim that if there were any acts of terrorism now, the judge’s would be to blame.

That’s simply not true.

President Trump has the option of re-drafting the executive order to eliminate its constitutionally questionable aspects — while preserving its most important protective provisions.

A re-drafted order could apply only to persons without green cards or other current connections to the United States. It could make other changes as well, which would reduce the likelihood that the court would strike it down.

Issuing a re-drafted order would constitute an implicit admission by the Trump Administration that there were problems with the original order.

President Trump is not likely to admit he was wrong.

But if he really believes that the security of our nation is at stake, he must put our security before his ego. In his press conference on Friday afternoon, Trump implied that he and his team may be working on a replacement or supplementary order. I have been urging them from day one to follow this route, and I hope they will do so.

So let the current cases proceed on its slow track to the U.S. Supreme Court, but in the meantime let the president work with the new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and his national security team to draft a revised order that protects us from terrorism without compromising constitutional rights.

That would be a win-win for all Americans.

Professor Alan Dershowitz is the author of "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law" and most recently, "Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for Unaroused Voters." Read more reports from Alan M. Dershowitz — Click Here Now.

© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Issuing a revised order would be an admission by Trump that there were problems with the original. Donald Trump is not likely to admit he was wrong. If he really believes that the security of our nation is at stake, he must put our security before his ego. That would be a win-win for all Americans.
precedents, redrafted
Friday, 10 February 2017 01:55 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved