We all were taught in high school civic class that the US Constitution establishes "three co-equal branches of government". This is a myth - it is both a lie and a pernicious lie. It is a lie, because it is not true. It is a pernicious lie, because it is actually and intentionally a cover for the unconstitutional imperial over-reach of the judicial supremacists.
I have long argued that Article III (Section 2) of the US Constitution makes it clear that the Congress has the general power to limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the highest-level court (you know, the one that judicial supremacists have trained us to think of as "THE Supreme Court")
I have long known that there are federal statues in which the Congress explicitly states that the courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate certain maters. But, as I knew no way that I could find an example of such a statute, I have not previously made reference to Congress exercising that power. However, seeming by chance, in reference to a recent example of judicial imperial over-reach by a "activist judge", the YouTuber Tim Pool real aloud a section of such a statue (see the last link, to the YouTube video). And so, having an example of the Congress exercising this power, I bring it to Gentle Reader's attention.
Below, I have quoted actual existing federal law: Section 221 (sub-sections h and i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Notice that sub-section (h) explicitly establishes that no alien has a right to enter the US, even if a visa has been issued him.
Notice that sub-section (i) gives the Executive branch discretionary authority to revoke and invalidate any alien's visa or other such documents and explicitly states that "There shall be no means of judicial review ... of a revocation under this subsection, except ..."
Understand this:
1) The "three co-equal branches of government" myth we were taught is a lie;
1a) In fact, the Legislative branch is supreme, notwithstanding that all three branches have powers into which the other two may not intrude;
2) The mere lower-court judge who has decreed that the Executive may not immediately deport a certain foreign agitator is violating the explicit language of this statute and is attempting, as "activist judges" always do, to set himself above both the Legislative and the Executive branches, and ultimately above the Constitution itself.
Section 221(H,I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(h) Nonadmission upon arrival
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to entitle any alien, to whom a visa or other documentation has been issued, to be admitted the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law. The substance of this subsection shall appear upon every visa application.
(i) Revocation of visas or documents
After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.
Tim Pool, reading from Federal Statue -- Section 221(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act -- (@8:10 mark)
0 comments:
Post a Comment