Dershowitz: Trump Will Likely Lose In Court Of Appeals, Win In Supreme Court On Travel Ban

Spread the love

Loading

Zip:

I think that’s quite likely. The 9th Circuit runs left, but the law is in Trump’s favor.

Via Newsmax:

President Donald Trump will lose the appeal on the nationwide ban on his travel executive order — but he will prevail before the Supreme Court, famed civil-rights attorney Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Wednesday.

“I do not believe that this order constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution,” the Harvard Law School professor emeritus told “Newsmax Prime” host J.D. Hayworth. “The fact that they picked seven Muslim states, those are the states that have high levels of terrorism.

“We’re talking about Islamic terrorism.

“When you focus on real victims or real perpetrators — and the impact is heavily on one particular religion, that doesn’t create a constitutional problem.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

32 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why not split up the 9th circuit. Maybe you would get one sane court. The 9th as it stands now has always been loony.

All we can hope is they judge based on the law and not feelings or agenda.

Dershowitz has a walnut sized brain like most all liberals do he is too darn stupid to tell wheather its night or day a typical liberal lawyers and all around big mouth

Hey Alan Dorkowitz the citizens of europe want a ban on immagrints from muslim nations why dont you please go soak your head

Donald Trump is not president of Europe. The United States is unlikely to see hundreds of thousands of unscreened Muslims showing up on our doorstep each month, because there’s already a screening process, there’s an ocean in the way, and they can’t swim that far. Our situation differs markedly from the European situation.

Around 30 minutes ago: Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

When Fox News reported the “decision” by the 9th Circus, they called it “stunning”.

Hardly.

It was fully predictable. These are liberal judges and liberal judges judge to support the liberal agenda. They don’t even make a pretense of employing law.

This is one of the reasons electing Trump was so important; we have quite enough liberal activist judges, thank you very much. That is another swamp that desperately needs draining.

The 9th Circus Court has been the nations most overturned court remember this was the same circus court that ruled against the Pledge all becuase of one idiot atheist fool

U.S. Appeals Court’s Ruling Against Trump’s Travel Ban—the full text of the ruling.

From the ruling:

The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. (…) Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.

In other words, President Trump, in the opinion of the court, you may not make pronouncements that are immune from the checks and balances provided by the Constitution of the United States.

Try arguing otherwise before the Supreme Court, and see what they tell you. The Supreme Court is not going to render a decision that curtails its own constitutional authorities and responsibilities.

If we lose at the Supreme Court, every terrorist attack on US soil will be laid at the feet of liberals. But they won’t care about our dead and wounded, or the friends and family members of the victims, they’ll still twist the facts in order to blame President Trump.

Thanks Greg I did a quick search earlier to find he written court denial and was not able to find what you posted, tons of opinion articles but there is nothing like having the actual document so you can read it and make your own decision on it.
Quite interesting the court mentions the hardship on colleges that are trying to attract foreign students and hire professors for anti-semite instruction.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/visa-program-struggles-track-missing-foreign-students.
But think that the addition of allowing religious persecution some how unfairly discriminates against these persons. They mention Muslim ban, when the total Muslim population in these 7 countries doesnt make a significant total of the planets total Muslim population.
Yup the 9th circuit court holding records for cases over-turned will continue its reputation of agenda driven decisions. I just wish they were forced to take a few into their homes.
http://downtrend.com/katrina/liberal-teacher-houses-muslim-refugee-co-worker-comes-in-to-find-horrifying-surprise

Senate GOP Introduces Bill To Break Up The ‘LIBERAL’ Ninth Circuit Court

Republicans are now pushing to break up the liberal ninth circuit court which is the most reversed court in the country. Republican Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain have introduced legislation to “carve six states out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit,” according to Fox News.

The argument that they make is that the court is too big, too liberal and too slow in resolving cases.

The ruling comes as no surprise. The original TRO dealt nothing with the law. The President and Congress have plenary power as lawfully statuted. The judge never applied the actual law but instead initially created a ruling based on emotion.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

@Greg: A stay by a liberal Attorney General is upheld by a liberal mock-court that denies a US code which EXPLICITLY STATES the President has the power to do what he did. Nothing could express more clearly how the left disregards law and the Constitution in order to fight threats to their failed ideology.

@Petercat: Make no mistake, liberals don’t care. That is not just rhetoric, that is a fact. The left LOVES it when a terrorist uses a firearm to carry out a terror attack because they use it to further their anti-gun, disarmament agenda. Without anything positive to offer the American people, the left CRAVES human misery to exploit.

Never let a crisis go to waste… even if you have to produce it yourself.

Should there be a terrorist attack following this absurd ruling, it will be these judges who will be directly responsible for the attack.

President Trump will be completely absolved of any responsibility, period.

July 4th American> I agree 100% hold these idiot judges liable and responsible lock them up and throw away the key our nations security is at stake and we must must not jepordize it to appease whining little snowflakes and the Useless Nations and that gose for the jerks with their WELCOME REFUGEES signs

@Spurwing Plover, #16:

The question is whether you want a nation governed by the Constitution, or a dictatorship.

What many Trump voters think they understand—but clearly don’t—is how our constitutional government is supposed to work. The following is from a Public Policy Polling release that came out today, based on the results of a survey conducted February 7-8:

Voters are concerned by the implications of Trump’s fight with the Judiciary. 53% of voters say they trust Judges more to make the right decisions for the United States, to only 38% who trust Trump more. And only 25% of voters think Trump should be able to overturn decisions by Judges that he disagrees with, to 64% who don’t think he should be able to do that. Trump voters have evidently had enough of the Constitution and those pesky checks and balances though- 51% of them think he should personally be able to overturn decisions he doesn’t agree with, to only 33% who dissent.

Think about what that means for a moment. Over one-half of Trump voters believe Donald Trump should personally be able to overturn court decisions that he doesn’t agree with, while only 33 percent of Trump voters think he should not have this power.

There was no application of the Constitution in the deplorable judicial activism by the 9th circuit.

The court had no judicial relevance with regard to national security.

The law in the case was never referenced.

Trump Says New Action on Immigration Coming: “You’ll Be Seeing Something Next Week”
Zero Hedge ^ | 02/10/2017

This was not judicial activism. It was an decision to uphold a ruling blocking a specific instance Executive Office overreach, which will have the effect of putting the matter of before the Supreme Court. That’s where the constitutionality will be decided, as should be the case.

Ignoring the constitutional problems with a presidential directive so broad and arbitrary as this would set a precedent. We could see a whole series of such directives, moving us one step at a time farther and farther away from constitutional government. It’s a constitutional function of the Judical Branch to maintain balance and keep that from happening.

The Trump administration needed to be given a little time out. They needed a reminder that a president cannot simply command that a thing be so, and have it automatically be so. There are limits set by law.

Trump is trying to portray this as some sort of emergency situation, relying on broadly generalized fear—which he is certainly doing his bit to promote—to stampede his supporters in the direction he wants the country to go. He’s trying to tell people the court is endangering the people. This is bullshit. The courts are protecting the Constitution and the rights of the people.

It’s not an emergency situation, and his ill-considered directive immediately had very negative impacts on a lot of people that constituted a threat to no one. If he wants to do something quickly, he should have his legal advisers look at the applicable laws and then do something more precisely.

JUDICIAL TYRANNY: 5 Biggest Legal Stupidities In The Ninth Circuit’s Decision To Stop Trump’s Executive Order

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ absurd ruling against President Trump’s immigration and refugee executive order contains a bevy of legal problems. It’s not just a bad political ruling, though it is – it’s bad law. Here are five of the biggest problems with the ruling:

1. States Suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” If Aliens Can’t Come To University Classes. This is absolutely absurd. It would strike down virtually any immigration law. All immigration laws restrict classes of people from entering, numbers of people from entering. Some of those people would undoubtedly go to university, or teach there. Does this mean that states can now sue to overturn all immigration laws?

2. The Federal Government Doesn’t Suffer “Irreparable Injury” If The Courts Overrule Immigration Policy. The court casually states that while the government has an interest in combatting terrorism, the “Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.” The executive branch didn’t explain sufficiently to the judiciary why the executive order needed to be put into effect, and so the executive branch has to go home emptyhanded. Again, this is ridiculous. Are we supposed to wait to be hit? Would the judiciary apply this same standard to, say, gun control laws?

3. Everybody Has Due Process Rights. This is perhaps the craziest element of the ruling: the statement that everyone from lawful permanent residents to aliens with a visa traveling abroad has due process rights. The court even says that illegal aliens have due process rights. The Constitution isn’t just for citizens anymore – which begs the question as to why anyone would bother applying for citizenship.

4. Courts Can Look To Motive Rather Than Text. The court said that they could look at Donald Trump’s statements during the campaign about a Muslim ban in order to evaluate this executive order. This is dangerous. Attempting to read the minds of those who put together laws is far more arbitrary than reading the text or looking at the application of the law. It’s also amazing that the Ninth Circuit would say this now, but that the Supreme Court would ignore President Obama saying for YEARS that Obamacare was not a tax, then rule that Obamacare was indeed a tax.

5. The Court Refuses To Strike Down Portions. Normally, the court works to avoid striking down entire laws or staying entire executive orders. Instead, the court just threw up its hands and suggested that it had done its best, but it couldn’t bother doing a close read.

All in all, the decision is damningly silly. That doesn’t make the executive order a model of legal brilliance – it’s got plenty of problems I have discussed elsewhere. But the court’s decision here does more damage to the law than the executive order, and it ain’t close.

DACA

I-821D Deferred Action

The seattle judges TRO did not even reference the law supporting the EO.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

A good theory explaining the poll results cited in #17 might be that the heads of more than 50 percent of Trump voters are full of total nonsense—thanks largely to the places where they’re getting their “alternate facts” and thanks to their inability to figure things out for themselves. If that becomes true of voters in general, you can kiss constitutional government in America good bye.

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that Donald Trump is the greatest danger this nation has faced in a very long time.

‘We’re going to see more’: Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump’s funding threats

Several towns, cities and counties around the nation are caving to President Trump’s threat to pull funding, and abandoning their “sanctuary” pledges to shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.

Dayton, Ohio, dropped a policy that restricted the city’s cooperation with immigration officials pursuing illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors or felony property crimes, according to the Dayton Daily News. Police Chief Richard Biehl said federal authorities will no longer be impeded by the city when pursuing illegal immigrants being held by his department.

Other communities that have dropped policies of shielding illegal immigrant suspects from Immigration and Customs Enforcement include Miami-Dade and Dayton, are Saratoga, N.Y., Finney County, Kan., and Bedford, Penn., according to The Center for Immigration Studies, which keeps a list of sanctuary communities.

“We are reviewing policy changes at a multitude of other jurisdictions as well,” said Marguerite Telford, CIS’s director of communications, who said the organization is “being inundated” by officials on its sanctuary map who want to be taken off.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com …

Judge Robart asking a government attorney, “How many (terrorism-related) arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?”

When the attorney said that she didn’t have that information, Robart responded: “Let me tell you. The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

Unfortunately, the “best (he) could tell” wasn’t exactly all that factual. As The Associated Press pointed out, several high-profile terrorism arrests have taken place involving refugees from those nations.
Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill told The Associated Press that 23 percent of Muslim-Americans charged with extremism-related terrorist offenses since the 9/11 attacks have come from the seven countries on Trump’s temporary ban list.
http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/press-release/ninth-circuit-upholds-ban-on-american-flag-shi
So much for freedom of expression

ICE Arrests 160 in Sweeping California Enforcement, Possibly More Across 6 States

Perhaps the leftists can judge shop and find a lunatic “judge” like the bozo in seattle to put a TRO on this action making similar absurd claims as the bozo “judge” in seattle did.

If they are here illegally, round them up and send them back to where ever they came from. As word gets out this is happening, self deportation will become a new industry.

Maybe some coyotes will emerge to assist the “travelers” in their efforts to leave…..

Ice would also be advised to create a fast exit lane at the border(s).

Ninth Circuit Court Now Demands It Be Protected From Itself…

Oh, the winning… it’s often too funny. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is now independently, on its own impetus, requesting an internal vote on a full panel en blanc hearing to review its own decision.

Additionally, the full ninth are asking the Trump administration to file an additional brief telling the court why the three member original appeals ruling authority was wrong. In essence, the smart judges know what wasn’t considered, and are now looking for an out.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/general/2017/02/10/17-35105_Supplemental%20Briefing%20Order.pdf

Here is the order

THOMAS, Chief Judge and En Banc Coordinator:
A judge on this Court has made a sua sponte request that a vote be taken as
to whether the order issued by the three judge motions panel on February 9, 2017,
should be reconsidered en banc. A sua sponte en banc call having been made, the
parties are instructed to file simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective
positions on whether this matter should be reconsidered en banc. The briefs should
be filed on or before 11:00 a.m., Pacific time, on Thursday, February 16. The
supplemental briefs shall be filed electronically and consist of no more than 14,000
words. See General Order 5.4(c)(3).

“In law, sua sponte (Latin: “of his, her, its or their own accord”) or suo motu “on its own motion” describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties.”

In other words, Trump did not request the ruling to be heard en banc. This action is by and of itself of the court. what this means is the court likely realizes they grossly errored. And judicial malfeasance like this has serious consequences.

The 9th circuit cannot begin to argue it is a court of law when a 3-judge panel upholds a decision without any reference to much less analysis of the law in force, the statutory interpretation, according to accepted cannons of interpretation, an analysis of the applicability to the order, and an effort to determine which parts of the order might be in violation of which parts of the statute and further any effort to conform the statute to the U.S. constitution.

No competent judge could read either the lower court decision or the appellate panel decision and conclude that appropriate judicial review was conducted.

Patently obvious, and President Trump would be a fool to fall into their trap. He has no legal obligation to engage in this foolishness.

Next week he should rescind the previous EO and issue another EO and tell the 9th circuit to GFthemselves……

By the court deeming EVERYONE on the planet has due process rights if they wish to waltz in and get US government freebies, they never took that decision beyond the fart in their brain, just how would that be accomplished?

Even the left has abandoned defending this ridiculous ruling.

Congress would well be within its Constitutional perogative to break up this court, and it would be sending a message to all that the judiciary is to rule on the law not political idealogy.

Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:

Somalia: 20
Yemen: 19
Iraq: 19
Syria: 7
Iran: 4
Libya: 2
Sudan: 1
Total: 72

According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.

These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump’s order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order.

Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun.

Why We Need To Let Legislatures Override Bad Court Rulings

The Supreme Court’s ability to issue a binding opinion on any subject that no one else could overturn is inconsistent with the checks and balances the Framers crafted.

We regularly witness the increasingly aggressive and activist posture of our nation’s judiciary. The issue recently came to a head with Judge James Robart’s extra-constitutional act of staying a significant portion of the president of the United States’ foreign policy initiative and the subsequent affirmation of that stay by the unabashedly activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Those of us who value the restrictions the Constitution places on government cannot help but worry over the implications of these unprecedented confrontational actions and the effects they will have upon our republic. Indeed, we are left with the troubling question of whether there is any solution to this latest assault upon the fabric of our Constitution. But perhaps there is.

In January, I filed a bill in the Florida House of Representatives that proposes a legislative override provision to Florida’s Constitution. I also filed an accompanying memorial suggesting that Congress consider a similar addition to the United States Constitution.

American Judicial History Lends Support to This Idea

To see why such a provision would be necessary, a review of our nation’s constitutional history regarding the judiciary is warranted.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution gave the courts “Judicial Power” over all cases and controversies arising out of the laws of the United States and the Constitution, but it did not assign to the Supreme Court final (plenary) authority regarding the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court actually seized this power in its seminal Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803. In it, Chief Justice John Marshall singlehandedly declared, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Consequently, any law the court determines is repugnant to the Constitution will be void.

Although the Congress of the day did not react to this, by 1820, the consequences of the resulting change in the relationship between the three branches of government caught the attention of Thomas Jefferson, who warned in a letter to Jarvis Williams, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [would be] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

The Civil War and its associated amendments set the stage for the fulfillment of Jefferson’s prognostications. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution included Due Process and Equal Protection clauses that federal judges would subsequently employ to force their will and power upon the states. With the appointment of progressive judges during the twentieth century, the Supreme Court engaged in the laborious work of redefining the various passages of the Constitution in manners neither foreseen nor intended by the Framers.

The Court Seized the Power to Redefine the Constitution

With their new powers, the Supreme Court applied the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the states, provisions that were initially conceived to apply only to the federal government. In so doing it was able to remove prayer from schools, remove religious symbols from public places, and restrict how adults prayed in public meetings.

Through its divined interpretation of privacy protections, the court then imposed new abortion laws upon the states, removing what was traditionally a state-based body of law and placing it at the feet of the federal courts. It also imposed requirements on states’ death penalty laws, and removed states’ power to limit the terms of its congressional delegates and senators, among countless other power-hoarding engagements.

Each of these actions was the result of decisions made by unelected officials permanently sitting upon the nation’s benches that would forever change the fabric of the Constitution and of the nation. And what recourse did the people possess to check the Supreme Court as it interpreted the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with their will?

Operationally, the answer, of course, is none. There is no amendment that will ever be passed to specifically overturn a Supreme Court opinion ruling that a crèche may not sit in a public building during Christmas; nor does Congress possess the authority to pass a law that would overrule the court when the latter speaks on issues of constitutionality, even if the matter were so obvious to Congress that it would have unanimously voted against court’s ruling.

Clearly, the Supreme Court’s ability to issue a binding opinion on any subject that no one else could overturn is wholly inconsistent with the system of checks and balances the Framers crafted. In fact, in the same 1820 letter to Jarvis, Jefferson observed, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” Yet this is the situation in which we find ourselves today with the Supreme Court, both in the various states and within the federal government.

Let’s Solve This the Way Canada Did

So how do we rectify this unchecked runaway judiciary? Recognizing a similar threat to its democracy, Canada instituted Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982 to allow for a legislative override. Under this provision, if a Canadian legislative body should find the opinion of the court inconsistent with the views of the electorate, the legislature could override or nullify the court’s ruling.

Canada is not alone in possessing such a provision. Australia, Israel, and England, among other great democracies, allow their respective legislatures to override even the highest rulings of their courts.

The reason for this is self-explanatory: no one in a republic ought to have plenary authority on practically any policy matter affecting the country, much less on ones defining the nature its foundational document. Doing so would not only mean subjecting that society to the despotic rule of one branch of government, but even more importantly, it would mean relinquishing control of the very fabric and ownership of its constitution to that group.

Recognizing this flaw in our national Constitution, I have crafted a proposed amendment that would permanently address this problem. It reads:

Any law, resolution, or other legislative act declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States or any District Court of Appeal may be deemed active and operational, notwithstanding the court’s ruling, if agreed to by Congress pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by a sixty percent vote of each chamber within five years after the date that the ruling becomes final. Such a joint resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.

A legislative override provision, if enacted, would curtail activist judges. Of equal importance, it would allow the people of the United States to take back control of their Constitution. It would also force the people to engage the legislature in enacting rectifications to current laws that they see as objectionable or flawed, rather than run to the courts to impose their unconvincing will upon Americans.

In short, a legislative override provision to our Constitution would represent the clearest and most effective correction to the unchecked actions of an overzealous activist court. Indeed, a legislative override provision would place our nation closest to the vision President Washington shared in his Farewell Address:

If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

A legislative override provision would prevent such usurpations from taking place and would, ultimately, save our free government.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of “The Federalist Pages” and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through http://www.thefederalistpages.com.