by Lanny Carruthers:
The Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts have taken into consideration President Trump’s comments about immigrants and Muslims from the campaign trail to prevent the President from enforcing his Executive Orders on immigration.
In a May 2017 ruling from the Fourth Circuit, 10 judges on the 13-member panel crucified Trump’s order as “a veiled attempt to block immigrants based on their religion”, and declared it a clear violation of the Constitution.
Citing the “backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisers and representatives” the court majority found that the executive order “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The court also pointed to statements Trump and his associates have repeatedly made about banning Muslims, particularly during his presidential campaign.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which was considering a challenge to the executive order from Hawaii, concurred.
“Like the Fourth Circuit, Judge Watson blocked major parts of the revised order on the ground that they violated the Constitution’s ban on a government establishment of religion,” The New York Times reported.
“Judge Watson wrote that the statements of Mr. Trump and his advisers made clear that his executive order amounted to an attempt to disfavor Muslims,” wrote The Times, quoting the judge: “‘A reasonable, objective observer – enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance – would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”
Flashback to 1964 and the Presidential election won by Lyndon Baines Johnson in a landslide victory. He used this mandate to push for legislation he believed would improve the American way of life, such as stronger voting rights laws.
President Lyndon Baines Johnson worked to enact a series of domestic programs called The Great Society. The Great Society was designed with the intent to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. A part of those programs was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was passed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 1965, by a vote of 77-19. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill on July 9, 1965, by a vote of 333-85. Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and the Presidency. President Johnson signed the Act into law on August 6, 1965.
On a recording of a telephone conversation in the Oval Office around 1964, President Johnson said, “…they say you can’t have a poll tax, they say you can’t have a gas tax or cigarette tax or anything else….now you can say that they can’t discriminate, but I’ve got to prove that it discriminates and I can’t prove it in Texas. There are more niggers voting there than there are white folks…more of them buying poll tax than white folks.. the higher percentage of them…and I can’t show that the literacy test discriminates against…because they ain’t got any…they got no test a t’all…and just By God anybody that can get up there and pay a $1.60(?) can vote.” It’s obvious from Johnson’s statement(s) that this recording occurred before passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
After listening to LBJ’s own words on the video below ask yourself: “Why was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 needed in the first place?” The question can also be asked if President Johnson could not prove discrimination, why did he sign the bill a t’all? If as President Johnson said that, “I’ve got to prove that it discriminates” does the Voting Rights Act of 1965 lose its intent and purpose? What was the purpose and/or intent of the Democrat-controlled House, Senate and Presidency with the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
Do President Johnson’s words make the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional based on the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Court standards? Would be interesting to see how the liberal judges spin this one!
It’s obvious “A reasonable, objective observer – enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance – would conclude that” President Trump’s Executive Orders were “issued with a purpose without disfavoring a particular religion.” It’s obvious the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Court Judges are not reasonable, objective observers.
Make sure you share this article and others to help Make America Great Again! #MAGA