Stolen Sovereignty: Fake judges violate 200 Years of Case law by staying Trump’s sovereignty order
3rd person throwing gavel in trash can

Fake judges stay Trump’s sovereignty order

Unless Congress restores the judiciary to its proper role, our sovereignty will be lost.

Posted January 30, 2017 06:00 AM by Daniel Horowitz 3rd person throwing gavel in trash can
Jane0606 | Shutterstock
    • Font Size
    • A
    • A
    • A


We no longer have sovereignty as a nation. The courts, which have been crowned king of this country, have now moved into the final frontier of judicial tyranny. They are concocting an affirmative right to immigrate, even during a time of war and from war-torn Islamic countries.

Over the weekend, federal judges throughout the country exemplified everything I’ve warned about in my book, Stolen Sovereignty, and in countless columns over the past year. Violating the entire sovereignty of the nation, vitiating 200 years of case law, and undermining the plain language of statutes, federal judges issued varying stays on part of Trump’s executive order. 

None of the decisions had any basis in law and they set a dangerous precedent that will eventually create an affirmative right for any individual in the world to immigrate. Stolen sovereignty indeed — all brought on by fake judges over-sensationalized by fake news and mob rule. 

Throughout the weekend, the ACLU shopped cases around to extremely liberal federal judges in five states to force immigration officials to allow non-citizens into the country who were subject to the restrictions of Trump’s executive order, vested in the president by statute. Never in our history have judges treated exclusions of foreign nationals like removals (deportations) and subjected them to the deportation process. But a district judge in California went a step further and used extremely dangerous rhetoric that, if left unchecked, will leave us without any control over who comes into this country.

Religious freedom for Somali nationals to immigrate but not for American Christians to practice

Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California ordered Customs and Border Protection officials to escort an Iranian national back from Dubai to the United States after he was already excluded and while he was outside of American soil. Not only did she say the plaintiff, who should have never had standing, was likely to win on the merits and overturn the executive order, she invoked the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. Yes, the federal courts, as I warned in Stolen Sovereignty, are now creating an equal protection and religious liberty right for foreign nationals to affirmatively come to this country. Judge Dolly is the same individual who forced the Obama administration to release countless criminal aliens from detention in a case now pending before the Supreme Court.

Consider the following perverse juxtaposition: the same liberal judges who believe American Christians and Jews cannot practice their religions with their own private property and must sell abortifacients and service gay weddings believe that Somali nationals can assert a religious liberty right to immigrate and establish Sharia law. The same individuals who believe that Americans can’t display replicas of the Ten Commandments in court houses believe that an unlimited number of Muslims have a right to come here under all circumstances.

Madison was one of the most passionate believers in religious conscience, which he referred to as “the most sacred of all property.” Yet he made it clear that it must only be honored “in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace.”

We are living in judicial Sodom and Gomorrah.

During the House floor debate over the First Amendment on August 20, 1789, James Madison explained the purpose of the Establishment Clause as follows: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”

Let’s be clear, everyone admitted into our country has the right to peacefully adhere to their religion. That includes Muslims. As social conservatives, we certainly appreciate their right a lot more than the secular Left. However, there is no affirmative right to immigrate here. To continue admitting mass numbers of people who subscribe to the very mentality we are seeing in Europe — an anti-assimilation culture that represents the antithesis of religious liberty and the epitome of compulsion that seeks to trespass on the rights of others — is an anathema to our Founding values. 

The Courts must be stripped of ill-gotten jurisdiction over immigration

We are living in judicial Sodom and Gomorrah. What is an inalienable right, the courts ignore; what it antithetical to a natural right and violates national sovereignty, they enshrine. What is a state power, they give to the feds; what is a fed power, they give to the states. What is a true religious freedom, they deem discriminatory; what is antithetical to religious and national freedom, they enshrine as a religious freedom right.  

Yet, a bunch of pseudo-conservative writers spent the weekend focusing on how terrible it was for Trump to include green card-holders in the temporary moratorium from Yemen and Somalia, despite the problems we’ve had from those who travel abroad to war-torn countries and come back to do us harm. In reality, these court cases did not even deal with green card-holders because they were all waved through customs after secondary screening. Courts are now granting rights to foreign nationals who never even entered our shores to be picked up and brought here.

And make no mistake, this is not just about Trump’s executive order. Implicit in these court rulings is a warning that they would invalidate similar acts passed by Congress because they are saying national sovereignty is preempted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Yes, we are stuck with 10,000 refugees a year from Somalia (as we’ve been doing for two decades) for eternity. 

The ACLU, together with endless lower court judges who have the perceived ability to issue a stay on all national policy, will ensure that every enforcement measure against illegal immigration is also locked up in court.

There is simply no way around it. Either Congress finally exercises its Article III Sec. 2 powers over the courts to at least limit the jurisdiction of lower courts over immigration, or we lose our national sovereignty.

How ironic that the very authority for “striking down” acts of the political branches of government and being the sole and final arbiter of constitutional interpretation comes from an erroneous interpretation of Justice John Marshall’s dicta in Marbury. Here’s how Marshall once explained sovereignty:

"The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source."[1] 

By granting illegal aliens rights to be released into the country, serviced with education and health care and citizenship for their children — all at taxpayer expense — the courts are infringing on the liberty and property rights of the American citizen, not to mention the very essence of the social contract and consent-based popular sovereignty — the foundation and preamble of our founding. 

Similarly, judges like Dolly Gee who grant any foreign national the right to enter or re-enter this country over the statutory exclusions of Congress or the president violate the security and sovereignty of the American citizen without any legitimate source of consent.

The judicial coup against American sovereignty is one of the biggest constitutional crises confronting us today.


[1] The Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 136 (1812).

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.