At the Constitutional Convention, Gouverneur Morris, who is widely believed to be the primary drafter of the actual prose of our Constitution, declared the following concerning America’s sovereignty: “Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”
As to who makes those decisions on behalf of our club, it has been inviolable settled law that Congress has full authority over the issue of immigration. Justice Felix Frankfurter said in 1953, “there is not merely ‘a page of history’… but a whole volume… that the formulation of these policies [immigration] is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.” 
Yet, as a I warn in Stolen Sovereignty, the courts have now taken over immigration policy and are forcing Congress and the people to accept all sorts of undesirable immigrants based on their own liberal preferences.
The latest case involves an illegal alien living here since 1997 who has successfully gotten the Ninth Circuit to block his deportation. Salomon Ledezma-Cosino, a Mexican citizen, petitioned the courts to grant him leniency by cancelling his deportation because, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, the Attorney General has the authority to do so for those with “good moral character.”
To begin with, this is part of an absurd pattern whereby the legal profession takes statutes that grant the executive branch discretion for leniencies and convinces the courts to mandate such leniency. But in this case, the statute prevented the Obama administration from offering such leniency because Ledezma-Cosino was a habitual drunkard, and under 8U.S.C.§ 1101(f), a habitual drunkard is ineligible for the designation as an alien with “good moral character.”
In comes the Ninth Circuit that, in a 2-1 decision, “invalidates” not just the actions of the administration but the congressional statute itself! Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal Carter appointee, wrote the majority opinion. “Is it rational for the government to find that people with chronic alcoholism are morally bad people solely because of their disease? The answer is no,” argued Reinhardt.
We have now entered the final frontier of judicial tyranny with courts granting post-constitutional “equal rights” to foreign nationals and even illegal aliens. In reality, 200 years of impervious settled law demonstrates that Congress has full authority to decide which immigrants to deport, even among those who came here legally. They can make any conditions they want. Certainty as it relates to those who violate our sovereignty, such individuals have no right whatsoever to remain in the country – habitual drunkard or not.
As the courts have said during our early days of immigration enforcement, “It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by congress, are due process of law.”  And “[D]ue process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.” 
The modern courts are quite literally ruling the preamble of the Declaration, popular sovereignty, jurisdictional sovereignty, and 200 years of court precedent as unconstitutional!
The practice of granting judicial amnesty is part of a growing problem from the Ninth Circuit, especially as it relates to their definition of “good moral character.” It has recently ruled that identity theft (very common among illegal aliens), perjury, and vehicle theft are all not considered crimes of moral turpitude.
What is even more disconcerting is that the growing trend of stolen sovereignty on the part of the courts is coinciding with the Obama administration’s war on our nation’s sovereignty. Even when forced to enforce congressional statutes, the administration only reluctantly defends them in the courts. For example, in this particular case, as in many previous cases involving judicial amnesty propagated by the lower courts, it is quite possible that Obama’s Solicitor General will not appeal the case to the Supreme Court. This in turn, creates more judicial velocity and precedent to cementing the illegal role of the courts in issues related to immigration and sovereignty.
As I will demonstrate in my upcoming book, it’s time to strip the courts of their ill-gotten power over immigration. It’s also time to send a direct message to the Ninth Circuit and break up its power. Congress, under the direction of a conservative president, should create a new circuit in its place and relegate the existing Ninth Circuit to jurisdiction over one deserted county in California. The people’s sovereignty and the security of this country depend on it.
 Galvan v. Press 347 U.S. 531 (1954).
 Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538 (1895).
 Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 223 (1953) (Jackson, dissenting).
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.