We wrote here about an ACLU lawyer arguing one of the Trump travel moratorium cases in the 4th Circuit who said that the president’s order “could be constitutional” if only it had been issued by the rightful president, Hillary Clinton.
As a matter of constitutional law–or law, period–that is idiotic. But it wasn’t just a slip of the tongue by an incompetent lawyer. Today, arguing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawyer representing the State of Hawaii answered a judge’s question by saying that “context matters,” and therefore a president other than Donald Trump could properly issue the same order.
It is not hard to understand what is going on here. President Trump’s travel moratorium is obviously constitutional, and unquestionably is authorized by a federal statute that specifically allows him to issue such immigration orders. Liberal lawyers shopped for grandstanding liberal district court judges who would go along with their absurd theories, but as they work their way up the chain of command, they can’t seriously argue that Trump’s order is, on its face, unconstitutional. That position is simply stupid.
Instead, they have to argue that it is “unconstitutional”–in the way in which liberals use that word, having no reference to the actual Constitution–only because it was issued by President Trump. They will eventually lose that argument. If it were accepted, it would effectively render the Constitution irrelevant. We would be living in a realm of pure, unconstrained politics.
The newspapers would have us think that the remarkable thing going on in Washington is the craziness of the Trump administration. I think it is far more accurate to say that the remarkable thing going on in Washington, and across the country, is the insanity of the Left.