以下為嘉中校友對日前本人所寫，有關『美國行政和司法權之争』一文之回應：
Dear Teacher:
After reviewing your article I have a few comments.
1. This is a pure legal issue and politics should not play any role in this matter.
Since Trump government was in place there exist numerous disputes based on politics and there is never a good condition to the U.S. country. U.S. judges should not judge different based upon their politics. But in fact, the homies of each party appears to be judged based upon their political opinions. As a result there is a fundament issue of Supreme Court Justice which will interpret and decide the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, which may interpret the Constitution in ways vary from time to time depending the politics of each Justice in place. The idea or notion of judge being neutral to politics is fundamentally unobtainable.
As a result, each party is fighting to nominate the Supreme Court Justice to gain major influence in interpret the meaning of the Constitution. As now there is a favor position to liberal democratic when 8 Justices are in place the liberals will have a better opportunity to challenge anything that liberals will sustain their political views. If the 9th Justice is in place by Trump the opportunity will become less and the Republicans will challenge the Constitution of abortion and gay’s rights and equal protection in education issues, etc. which conservatives opposed the current status of the laws interpreted under U.S. Constitution. There are numerous areas of laws will change from time to time. This country will be at turmoil again and again.
Hence, I always question the wisdom of Supreme Court being the ultimate entity to have a last say of the Constitution and how far can they interpret the Constitution and how much they can really represent the will of the people. The current 5 to 4 to decide the meaning of Constitution is way too easy to change the meaning of the Constitution is way too easy to change the fundamental laws that made me puzzled and shocked since day one when I came to the United States to study laws.
2. Trump President Should have an executive power to declare a temporary suspension of immigration laws in force without much restrictions under the ground of national security especially U.S. is at war with ISIS. The judge’s second guess on President’s wisdom on issuing the executive power and one judge’s power to ban President’s executive order is potentially dangerous, and questionable legal and inappropriate.
First, President’s is a commander in chief of the national security. Even though the President has a legal obligation to enforce the laws but his power to command based upon security ground may not be required to disclose any federal judge who accepted the jurisdiction of the case opposing to the order. Or, otherwise any challenge made by any person in the United States can defeat U.S. executive oder at any time. Literally the ISIS or U.S. enemy can hire attorneys to defeat or deter U.S.’s administration without using any military weapon.
Second, U.S. is at war with ISIS and world tourists. Since September 12, 2014 Obama openly announced that U.S. was at war with ISIS and Trump announced his administration will eliminate ISIS from the face of the earth. The tense of war between U.S. and tourists is very strong. Tourist especially ISIS will do anything to kill and defeat US especially again President Trump. If Americans are supporting their President they should know they are at risk of losing their lives if they are too nice to treat the tourists regarding what ground they based to allow them to have an opportunities to kill Americans. President shall take whatever best way as he see fit to protect U.S. citizens and residents. It is without doubt. If President’s any protective action shall not enforce if any federal judge disagree his executive order will be banned how the President can protect U.S. people effectively? This issue can be resolved only the Supreme Court can be final say. Before that the judgment cannot take effective as it is too manager to let one jude to decide this country’s safety. Otherwise, U.S. will be at danger.
|
|
 |
Obama Administration Says U.S. Is 'At War' With ISIS - NBC News
Before Friday, the administration had avoided the terminology.
| |
|
|
Third, The executive order is reasonable and did not abuse his legal authority. The criteria that judge should review on this type of case is not whether or not President has reasonable ground to issue such order based upon the national safety or whether or not President has gone through due process to issue such executive order to deprive the rights of the immigrants. Instead, the Judge should review the executive order under the criteria whether or not the President has abused his President power to issue such order. If it is necessary for the national security the nation can sacrifice its people’s life, liberty and property for the national interests especially U.S. is at war. If Congress disagrees with President’s declaration of war the Congress can repeal the war declaration according to U.S. Constitution. The federal judges regardless in district court or or court appeal were not appropriate to ban President’s legal authority to issue an executive order within his power by second guess his wisdom. I did not applause for their actions. They are literally endangering this country at their discretion. No judge has such power can decide whether President’s action is reasonable as the judge has no business to place themselves in the position to understand the complexity of national security issue especially there exist so many XXX class of national secrets which the Judge may not be appropriately to be informed.
Fourth, the order to suspend entry is 90 days or 120 days or until the new administrative is ready to handle the national security with respect these seven suspected countries and it is not a permanent ban.
The new government should be allowed to suspend immigration of certain countries or areas to enter into U.S. as the national safety is at issue until they can be ready to cope with it. The new president may disagree with previous administrative’s enforcement of national security measurement. He should be allowed to adjust immediately after he takes the administration. That is reasonable even that will affect immigrants from certain area. The inconvenience caused by such order is necessary as national safety is a national interest. The weigh of the national interest on national safety is always larger than temporary inconvenience of the certain persons. As long as there is without legal basis the President is permitted to issue such order without the risk of be constituted as “abuse of legal authority” The people should know that the Immigration laws clearly stated immigration is a legal privilege and not a legal right. That means that the U.S. government may stop at any time or deprive or repeal immigration laws and foreigners may not sue U.S. government for legal compensation because it is not a legal right to foreigners. U.S. government, which means Congress, can stop all immigrations and U.S. administration may refuse entry of any foreigners to enter U.S. The foreigners may not sue Congress or State government for damages. The Judges fight for foreigners’ rights against U.S. government is absurd and unreasonable especially it is just a temporary measurement. Once it is becomes a precedent I do not know how the State act effectively in any matter even in most important national security matter without be deterred by foreigners through legal actions.
The above let me to think that are we at a legal war or at a political war or at both within the U.S. states?
Larry C. Liou, Esq. (劉律師)
按：劉律師乃美國洛杉磯地區十分著名的資深移民律師，劉律師曾受教於本人，亦為傑出的嘉中校友。以下為本人簡略回答，同時也歡迎其他校友参與討論：
Dear Dr. Liou:
Many thanks to you for a response to a recent posting of my own writing regarding the contention between US Executive & Judicial Powers.
In my understanding, the current issue occurs between White House and the Judges because of an apparent conflict between people's right and President's executive order-travel ban.
According to the district court judges in Seattle and those of the 9th Circuit Court, the White House counsels did not present to the courts sufficient evidence, proving that the Ban is absolutely necessary for national security or otherwise the nation would be exposed to imminent danger or jeopardy. That's why Donald Trump lost bid to his Ban.
However, as you clearly indicated in the above comments, the President of the United States of America is authorized by US Constitution to have his order executed, especially for the protection of U.S. people and/or her safety. I think I totally agree with you in this regard. Unfortunately, the attorneys represented by the White House to defend the Ban may not seem to be well-qualified to win the case.
For most of the attorneys at law, particularly specializing in immigration law might have diverse viewpoints, standing side by side with judges of Appeals Court. It is very hard sometimes to distinguish between a legal issue or politics though Donald Trump claims that ii is political. But I believe eventually truth will prevail.
I do appreciate your time, effort, and concern with which to write this letter of comments and response to my posting on the 嘉中 Blog.
Regards,
Justin Lai (賴正雄)
02/13/2017
於美國南加州
沒有留言:
張貼留言