All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2017 - InfoWars Special Reports
19:25
Judges - Destroying The Constitution
Source
| Copy link to current segment Download episode

Time Text
I want to take a look at this competition that's going on between the judicial branch and the executive branch.
In light of these decisions, the appellate court or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that handed down And of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to read you comments from people who are.
People like Jonathan Turley, people like Judge Napolitano, people like Trey Gowdy.
These people are lawyers, and you don't have to be a lawyer to look at the Constitution critically to understand it either, do you?
So we can read, it's in English, and we can ask our own questions, and it's interesting to see that a lot of people who are legally trained have these same issues.
Now, we're going to take a look at a lot of different things before we get to even the policy of this.
This is independent of the policy.
We're going to talk about how do they have standing to sue in these courts?
Do these courts have jurisdiction?
What about the right of immigration that is being established?
Is this nothing but pure politics and judicial activism?
Those are the issues that we're going to be looking at, regardless of what you think of the policy.
And then we'll talk briefly about this policy underlying it.
First, let's talk about the standing.
Many times we see suits brought against the TSA, for example, violating people's Fourth Amendment freedom against unwarranted searches.
Saying, we have the right to pat you down or x-ray you before you can travel.
And the courts will say, no, you don't have standing to challenge this or whatever.
We see that as one of the most common things.
As a matter of fact, this same judge, District Judge James Robart, who originally issued this decision, just issued a decision with Microsoft.
And in this particular case, Microsoft was saying they wanted to be able to notify their customers that the government was coming to collect information about them.
And the judge said, all right, you've got a First Amendment right to speak to your customers when their private information is being collected during a criminal investigation.
But he said, you do not have a right to say that this law violates customers' rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
A third party, he says, like Microsoft, doesn't have standing to stand up for the constitutional rights of somebody else, their customers.
And so when you look at this and you say, well, this suit was brought before this judge by the states of Washington and Minnesota.
How do the states of Washington and Minnesota have standing to come before him for foreign citizens?
Now, one of the things that they argue in their trial, they say, well, we have standing to come here because we're acting in parents patriae.
That's a Latin term that means parents of the nation.
The idea that the government, when it's...
Coming in situations where you've got children who are under abuse or neglect, they can come in and say that we're going to act as their parents.
But see, that's for their citizens.
These are not citizens of Minnesota.
These are not citizens of Washington State.
These are not citizens of the United States.
They're not their parents.
They are foreign citizens.
And I think one of the things we need to understand, we constantly use this term aliens, let's understand aliens are citizens.
Of another country.
They have another country.
Not this country.
And let's keep that in mind.
So when they look at this, and the question is, do they have standing?
Well, the way that they appealed, and of course they said that we do have standing because we are parents of the nation, and they said these are residents living within our border.
They're not citizens.
They're just there, and they're not there legally necessarily.
And we'll talk about that in a moment as well.
But they're saying that it inflicts Damage on their state operations and the missions of their public universities.
So there you go.
The only thing that they have to hang on to this for standing is that it's going to somehow affect their public universities.
That these people from foreign countries can't come in and study at these universities.
Again, the universities at the center of this problem.
That is the little tiny thread.
Of standing that they have in order to go before this judge, but does he have jurisdiction?
Judge Napolitano says no.
He says this is so profoundly wrong.
What he said was the Constitution assigns the decision-making for foreign policy exclusively to the president, with even Congress taking a supporting role.
He said the decision to ban is not renewable, okay?
It's no more their jurisdiction than if they decided to rule in a Georgia case.
This is a court that's based in Washington state.
They don't have geographical jurisdiction to rule in Georgia.
They don't have political jurisdiction in this particular case.
The Constitution gives this prerogative to the executive branch.
Judge Napolitano goes on to say that there's no ambiguity in the Constitution.
It gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president.
He said that's why this is so profoundly wrong.
So even if you can say that they've got some little standing because they say their universities might be harmed if we don't allow people from Somalia to come in, that clearly is not the case that they even have jurisdiction there.
Now, Jonathan Turley, who doesn't agree with the substance of the travel ban, he doesn't think it was well-written, he doesn't agree with what the president is doing, he's on MSNBC. And, of course, he also doesn't think that it was rolled out very well.
And he says all that, but he says, but I still think the law favors the administration once you get to the merits, the legal arguments.
Again, we haven't even talked about whether or not these people in these countries should be allowed in, whether they are a...
Security risk or whatever, that's not even on the table yet.
We're still talking about where they have standing, where they have jurisdiction.
And then he says, I don't agree with many of those, some of those cases, but he said the courts have been highly deferential to the president and they generally don't second guess.
I think the people also have to acknowledge that the Trump administration here is making, listen to this.
Virtually the identical argument to the Obama administration.
That's Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University on MSNBC. He goes on to say, the Obama administration argued the president's judgment on administration was largely unreviewable.
He argued that he could even refuse or order the failure to enforce immigration laws.
So for all the Democrats, he said, who are objecting now, I didn't hear a peep of objection from them.
When just last year, these arguments were being made by the same Justice Department.
Do you understand?
When Obama comes in and he issues an executive order, and he says, I'm not going to follow the immigration laws, and I have the prerogative to decide what foreign policy is, if there's risks here or whatever, or to control the borders, and I'm not going to follow the laws, and you have no say-so in this, they say, okay, all right, we'll leave you alone.
Do whatever you want.
But when Trump comes in and says, I'm going to follow...
The laws, the immigration laws.
I'm going to enforce the border laws.
I'm going to enforce the borders.
I believe these people are a national security risk.
The courts say, you can't do that.
And yet it's the same policy, the same policy, not the same policy, but the same legal arguments that are being made here.
And it's the same people.
From the same Justice Department.
They haven't changed anything yet.
Remember that it was just yesterday when this court decision came out that we even had Jeff Sessions as the new Attorney General.
And so these are the same people from the Justice Department that were there with Obama.
And the same thing was done a year ago.
They let Obama do it.
That shows you right there that this is purely politics.
They don't like the...
Travel ban itself, they don't have a legal issue to stand on here.
So we're not even talking about whether the policy is good or right.
They just don't have the authority to stop this.
Now, Trey Gowdy goes on and looks at this and says, this is about something else as well.
Again, this is the courts doing policy, which is not what they're about.
They're supposed to be referees.
Instead, they are crafting what is happening here, and what they're doing is they're crafting a new right, a right of immigration into the United States.
Understand, they don't care when the government violates your Fourth Amendment, your Fifth Amendment, your Sixth Amendment, any of those rights, the First Amendment even.
They don't care when the government violates that.
The courts routinely look the other direction.
But when we have foreign citizens who say, I want to come into this country, they say, oh, they've got a right to come in.
Forget about the rights of Americans that are protected with the Bill of Rights.
They routinely shred that.
But when there's a right that is not in the Constitution, they want to create that.
And that's what we see happening here.
Now, this is what Trey Gowdy said.
He said, of course, the Ninth Circuit probably isn't going to stand because they are the circuit court that routinely gets their decisions overturned because they are so highly politicized.
And so he says...
They have a reputation for being presumptively reversible.
In other words, we're going to see this reversed most likely.
He says, unlike the district court order, there's at least a court opinion at this Ninth Circuit Court that we can evaluate.
In other words, when the guy at the lower level came in and said that the states of Washington and Minnesota had standing to sue for foreign citizens, nonsense, and said that they were there because their universities were going to somehow be damaged and said, okay, we're going to do it.
And then what he said was, I think this is going to succeed.
He didn't say why he thought this was going to succeed.
Why they were going to be able to overturn this.
He just said, I think it's going to go through.
And he didn't give any reason for that.
And everybody is shaking their head at this in amazement.
Because he gave no reason for why he thought they would succeed on appeal.
But then he goes on to say this.
Of particular interest is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's suggestion that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration.
In other words, this is that new right that they're creating.
A right to immigrate in the United States.
See, foreign citizens under globalism, this is what this is, foreign citizens under globalism have rights that Americans don't.
They supersede and are superior to our rights.
He said the proposition that even aliens who have committed or have been convicted of crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process right with respect to travel to or from the United States.
In addition, the court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a president's national security conclusions.
See, that's the issue.
We haven't even gotten to whether or not Donald Trump is right that for security reasons we need to do more vetting.
The court is saying, we're going to take a look at that and determine whether or not you have reason to be concerned about people.
That's not their prerogative.
That's not their prerogative.
He goes on to say this, they appealed to a decision from 2001. This was a case in 2001 that happened just prior to September 11, 2001. In this particular case, it mandated the release of thousands of criminal aliens.
Now, these are people who have committed crimes above and beyond Coming into this country in violation of our immigration laws.
These are people who have come in and committed murder or robbery or other things like that, rape.
They were being held as criminals.
And in this particular Supreme Court decision, Zad Vidas versus Davis, if I'm reading that name correctly, what they said was that these were some immigrants, a couple of immigrants who came in and they could not find a country that would accept these aliens.
I guess maybe they weren't sure what Where they were citizens, nobody would accept them within the 90-day statutory limit.
So they had a limit, said, okay, if you want to deport these people, you've got to do it within 90 days.
They tried to detain them after the 90 days.
The government invoked a statute that allowed the Attorney General the authority to detain an alien for more than 90 days if the Attorney General found it necessary to do so for public safety circumstances.
But the Supreme Court disagreed with the government's interpretation of the statute and ruled the statute as used, violated...
Aliens, constitutional rights to due process.
Now, just as we talked about the other night, they don't care about due process for American citizens.
They use civil asset forfeiture all the time, taking away your presumption of innocence, taking your property and keeping it without ever even charging you with a crime, let alone finding you guilty of it.
But here are foreign citizens who have already had their due process and been found guilty, and they're saying, no, you've got to release them because you can't find a country that's willing to take them back.
Violent criminals back into the population.
And then as part of that court case, the Supreme Court amazingly said this.
Trey Gowdy quoted this.
He said, legal permanent, they said we have to look at these classes of people.
Legal permanent residents, non-citizens with current valid visas, non-citizens with expired visas, aliens who have committed a crime but who have not yet been deported, aliens who are not even president.
The President in the United States but seek to come here are just a few of the categories that the Supreme Court will need to determine what process is due, if any.
So basically, this is everybody.
This is world government being forced down our throats by an active judiciary.
And then he goes on to say this.
The Supreme Court's dissenting justices said that, in their opinion, this claims a right of release into this country by an individual who concededly It has no legal right to even be here.
That is the right that they're inventing, the right of immigration.
And as Pat Buchanan points out, we really do have to break the power of the judiciary.
Remember, Alexander Hamilton had said that the judiciary was the least dangerous of the three branches of government.
He said the executive branch has the power to do things.
Remember, Andrew Jackson said to the Supreme Court Justice, well, you made your ruling, let's see you enforce it.
You don't have any power to enforce this.
And Alexander Hamilton also said that the judiciary did not have the passion of the legislature.
In other words, they were not going to be political, and they didn't have the power to enforce it if they were political, but today they do have both the passion and the power because they have been given that power, given that power by the legislature, by the executive branch, who have essentially ceded it to them, just as our legislature and our executive branch have ceded power.
To the bureaucrats to write laws for us.
And so we have legislation without representation.
This is power that has been abdicated to these people and it needs to be taken back.
And I think perhaps Donald Trump is the guy to do it.
And I think the American people are with him.
Let's take a quick look at the policy because this is the most popular executive order of those that Donald Trump has done.
So the people want to see this happen.
The people believe that there is a security risk.
The president that the people just elected believes that there is a security risk.
And yet these judges, who as we've seen, are giving this case that has questionable standing, this case where they have no jurisdiction, this case where they are playing pure politics, ignoring the fact that they respected Barack Obama's pronouncements on foreign policy, on the borders, on national security.
Saying they had no jurisdiction there.
Well, now they're saying that they do have jurisdiction because they don't agree with the politics of Donald Trump.
And so when they were arguing before the Ninth Circuit of Court, Court of Appeals, the Justice Department said this.
They said these seven countries that are targeted have significant terrorist presence or they were safe havens for terrorism.
Now, I would say that Obama agrees with that as well.
Why?
Because Obama was bombing these countries.
He had...
Drone assassinations.
He had bombings.
He sent in troops into these countries, these seven countries.
And so clearly, if these countries are not a danger, why isn't the left complaining about the war that Barack Obama created with them?
Why aren't they complaining about the sanctions and about the overt violence that's being committed there in the name of regime change?
You see the pictures of the Aleppo boy?
We'll understand where that is coming from.
Just like Madeleine Albright said, she had no problem with a half million Iraqi children who died because of sanctions.
She didn't deny that she'd killed him.
She just didn't have any problem with it.
She thought it was worth it for a regime change.
And for a regime change, they think that it's worth it to have Aleppo boys.
So whenever you see that pitiful picture of that boy, think about why that is happening.
And if they are dangerous enough, and if the regime change is so important, these people are so dangerous that we need to go there and kill them.
And inflict a lot of collateral damage, then why is it that we need to bring them in here without even knowing who they are?
See, that's the absurdity behind all this, the double thing behind this.
They also argued that the district court's restraining order was too broad, giving rights to the people who had never been to the United States, and really, it needs to be narrowed.
And then in response to this, you had one of the Ninth Circuit Court judges, Canby, who was an appointee of Jimmy Carter, said, Well, how many of these people have committed terrorist attacks in the U.S., he wondered.
And then he answered himself and said, none of them.
And this is something we hear from the left all the time.
How soon they forget.
It was just November the 28th that we had a Somali student.
Remember?
This is all about shutting down the standing, going back to where we started, the standing the court said they had was because...
It would impair the universities.
The universities need to have foreign students.
Well, here was a foreign student from Somalia, one of the seven countries.
And remember, at Ohio State, he did a knife attack and a vehicle attack on people there.
So it isn't true.
It just happened about two months ago.
And it was a university student and that's why they say this has to happen.
And of course in these other countries like Libya and Yemen.
Remember we had embassy attacks there.
The 2012 embassy attack in Benghazi.
The 2008 U.S. embassy attack in Yemen.
We had 16 people who were killed there.
This is what...
They're not paying any attention to.
So we could debate that policy.
But we had that debate as part of the election.
The president under the Constitution has the power.
The courts recognized that power when Obama exercised it, but now out of pure politics and a desire to create a right to immigrate because they are globalists.
Let's not even call them liberals.
Let's not even call them Democrats.
They're simply globalists.
Because of that, they're going to shut this all down.
For InfoWars, I'm David Knight.
In case you haven't heard, InfoWars has become the most influential media outlet in America.
We're making freedom go viral.
And now we are proud to announce a new weapon in the epic battle against the globalists, InfoWars Prime, where you can watch live high-definition feeds of The Alex Jones Show, plus exclusive insider videos from the InfoWars crew and behind-the-scenes action.
Go to InfoWars.com forward slash app and download today.
InfoWars Prime is available right now for your iPhone or Android.
You will have access to exclusive videos that you can't see anywhere else.
That means live coverage of events and breaking news on location as it happens.
You can also take advantage of amazing deals from the InfoWars store that are only available for InfoWars Prime subscribers.
That's InfoWars Prime at InfoWars.com forward slash app.
If you can hear my voice, you are.
▲
Export Selection