Judges J. Robart, R. Clifton, W. Canby, M. Friedland impeached and tried for treason.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!

These Judges took an oath to uphold the constitution. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–650, title IV, § 404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)

The case of Washington v the US Government (incorrectly named Washington v Trump) was an attack on the US Government, an attempt to dismantle our system of government, and for the Judicial Branch to usurp its power and take over the Executive Branch of the US Government. This lawsuit was and is an attempt to overthrow the US Government.

"Trump" is not merely an individual as represented here, but President Trump who represents the Executive Branch of the US Government with all its powers and obligations dully invested in him when he took the oath of office.

The above named judges did not respect the separate powers of the U. S. government as delineated in Articles I, II and III of the constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution and numerous case law since our Founding gives Congress plenary power over immigration and the authority to delegate power to the executive branch specifically to decrease immigration. In addition the president also has war powers to stop immigration.

President George W. Bush and Obama utilized waiver authority to bring in these people; President Trump merely reinstated the base statute

We have been engaged in conflict in Somalia, Yemen, and many of these countries and have ongoing military operations in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. In fact, throughout our history, we have never admitted immigrants in such large quantities from nations that were the subject of ongoing wars. These judges are mandating we take them in!

This ruling directly conflicts with the clear language of immigration law (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), which delegates to the president the power to exclude any class of aliens whose entry he deems is not in the national interest. Congress rightfully delegated restrictionist authority to the president under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the clearest terms imaginable. Nearly every component of the immigration order is double covered by another statute. Under existing law unanimously passed by Congress (8 U.S. Code § 1735), any foreign national from state sponsors of terror (at the time of the original law in 2002, that included five of the seven countries on the President's list) are not to be granted visas forever (not just for 90 days). President Trump added Somalia and Yemen, which are even worse than state sponsors of terror; they are failed terror state safe havens with absolutely no data on immigrants. It would be a violation of the social compact for a president to allow immigration from those countries.

As for refugees, the president was specifically given the power to set the cap and criteria for who is let in as a refugee (more so than any other area of immigration) under 8 U.S.C. 1157. Even though prioritization of persecuted religious minorities appears unconstitutional, it is literally required by current law and the entire spirit of refugee status in the first place. From Section 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A):
“The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion…"

The judges did not have jurisdiction to rule on at least several of the ten counts in the lawsuit. The judicial power is defined by Article III of the Constitution, requires that a plaintiff must have standing for a federal court to have power to rule on the merits of a lawsuit. A party has standing if it has suffered a concrete particularized injury that is traceable to the defendants and can be redressed by a favorable court ruling.
But as the Supreme Court has made clear, a plaintiff must prove that it has standing for each issue raised in the lawsuit. Washington and Minnesota claim violations of the Establishment Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Those rights can only be raised by natural persons or by corporate organizations. A state has no rights under that constitutional provision or federal statute, so cannot sue over alleged violations. A state cannot assert the personal rights of its citizens.

The Supreme Court has reiterated countless times that when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in a lawsuit, the only power the court has is to explain why it cannot claim jurisdiction, then dismiss the case. That’s what should have happened for many of the claims in this lawsuit, rather than taking the extreme step of issuing a TRO. Which leads to another problem with the TRO: Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to “describe the injury” suffered by the plaintiff. The judges claimed that Washington and Minnesota had carried their burden of showing they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their lawsuit, but never says which ones. The states obviously cannot succeed on a claim they have no standing to raise in the first place and what’s more, the judges failed to provide the legal reasoning for his decision. Next, court injunctions should never be broader than necessary to remedy the injury suffered by the plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs are two states out of 50. Robart offers no explanation why blocking this EO in all 50 states from coast to coast is necessary to take care of Washington and Minnesota.

If sustained, this ruling would override the Constitution by making the Judicial branch, rather than the Legislative or Executive branches, the arbiter of both immigration and national security policy.

Today: Melissa is counting on you

Melissa Pereira needs your help with “Congress and the Trump Administration : Judges J. Robart, R. Clifton, W. Canby, M. Friedland impeached and tried for treason.”. Join Melissa and 61 supporters today.