Last week, by enjoining President Trump’s national security orders on immigration from seven terrorist hotspots, four federal judges appropriated to themselves the constitutional powers clearly reserved to the President.
Citizens were outraged [23], but what was the response from Republican congressional leaders?
Predictably weak and feckless.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), when asked if he had "concerns" about Trump's comment, told CNN's Jake Tapper during the “State of the Union” program, "Yes, I think it is best not to single out judges for criticism. We all get disappointed from time to time at the outcome in courts on things that we care about. But I think it is best to avoid criticizing judges individually."
Now here’s the bombshell.
Asked if the Trump administration's "sweeping travel ban" (actually a temporary pause on people coming from seven countries) went too far, McConnell said, "Well, the administration was modifying some of it already. And we will see where it ends up. The courts are going to determine whether the initial executive order, as it was issued, is valid."
In other words, Senator McConnell is happy to let the courts seize the President’s constitutional authority over national security and enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws, duly passed by Congress.
The Founders of the United States were acutely aware of the abuses that could be perpetrated by a government with no limits on its authority and power. Indeed, if the American Revolution was about anything, it was about freeing Americans from a government that had become a bully to the very people it was supposed to protect and keep free.
The history of freedom is one of ebbs and flows. There are always those who will take away the freedom of others; the American history of freedom is no different except that we have a structure and process designed to protect freedom – our Constitution. The Constitution was written to secure liberty better than any system of government in history and in the Constitution Americans have an advantage others throughout history seeking their freedom did not have.
To America’s establishment elite the Constitution is a quaint anachronism, a mere speed bump on the road to using government to help their cronies and enforce their will on the rest of society. Today’s Tea Party movement is nothing more and nothing less than a movement to reclaim the Constitution and a demand that once again the Constitution be enforced on the federal government [23].
And it was in that acute awareness of the power of government to arbitrarily coerce and abuse its citizens that the Constitution of the United States was drafted.
The Constitution, though, does not run on automatic pilot. It is not a passive guarantee of freedom. The Constitution must be enforced on government.
And in this case the Constitution offers a clear path to enforcing its division of authority upon a power grabbing judiciary: Impeachment [23].
And to that end we offer the following four initial counts in articles of impeachment against Federal District Judge James L. Robart of the Western District of Washington.
The articles of impeachment lay out four charges against Judge Robart:
1. Judge James Robart ignored the Constitution, statute and case law and substituted his personal whim to justify his arbitrary and capricious ruling restraining the President’s Executive Order 13,769. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution and unanimous case law since our Founding gives Congress plenary power over immigration and the authority to delegate power to the executive specifically to reduce immigration. The president also has war powers to shut off immigration from states whose citizens present a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.
2. By finding that President Trump’s Executive Order 13,769 imposed an unconstitutional religious test on potential refugees Judge James Robart ignored the plain language of Section 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) [24] and substituted his personal whim for the laws passed by Congress:
The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion.
3. In enjoining President Trump’s Executive Order 13,769 Judge Robart ignored the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 65(b)(2) that requires a court to “describe the injury” suffered by the plaintiff. Robart’s order claimed that Washington and Minnesota had carried their burden of showing they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their lawsuit, but never explained which of the States’ claims were likely to succeed.
4. In enjoining President Trump’s Executive Order 13,769 Judge Robart took upon himself legislative power reserved to Congress and created new rights for aliens that Congress never intended, specifically he created a right to enter or re-enter the United States. Through statue and longstanding case law visa holders have no property or liberty interest in those visas and thus no due process claim with respect to the revocation of visa contemplated by the Executive Order.
And there’s more to add, but we will let our friends and supporters add additional counts as the case moves forward.
Judge Robart's behavior clearly falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors," offenses that the US Constitution explicitly defines as grounds for removal of a judge through impeachment. The time is now for the House of Representatives to act with the authority vested in it by the Constitution and remove Federal District Judge James L. Robart of the Western District of Washington from the bench.
We urge CHQ readers to join us in demanding that Representative Robert Goodlatte (VA-6) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee immediately holding hearings on the impeachment of Judge James L. Robart by signing our Impeach Power Grabbing Judges Petition [23].
[25]