By -NO AUTHOR-
Because there is a conflict in district court rulings on his temporary travel restriction, President Trump could go ahead and implement it, some constitutional scholars believe.
The Trump administration Friday afternoon filed for an appeal of a Maryland federal judge’s ruling that the revised ban violates the First Amendment by disfavoring a particular religion. The case goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.
But a federal judge in Boston approved the original order, noted attorney Robert Barnes in an interview with XM Sirius radio’s Breitbart Daily News.
Barnes, arguing the Constitution and federal law give the president the authority to restrict entry to the country, said Trump could “always do a true Andrew Jackson,” the last president to challenge a court “usurping authority they did not have.”
Jackson’s response to the Supreme Court, in that instance, was: “Well, they’ve issued their decision; now, they can enforce it.”
Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.
But Barnes noted Trump can argue that because the federal court in Boston approved Trump’s Jan. 27 ban in a detailed 21-page order, “the president would be in his legal rights to say: ‘There’s a conflict between the courts. Until the Supreme Court addresses this, I’m going to do what’s appropriate to keep the country safe.’”
Barnes acknowledged the media backlash that would ensue, but he noted that Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz made that argument when the Ninth Circuit upheld a block on the original order by a federal judge in Seattle.
A Hawaii judge also put a temporary block on Trump’s revised ban, but an appeal of that case would have gone to the same San Francisco-based appeals court that rejected the original version of the ban.
Barnes pointed out that the Hawaii judge Click to see the original article