BREAKING: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has just upheld the recent Houston based Federal District Court decision on what is being called “The Jerusalem Embassy Case”.
In ruling for the plaintiffs, the Federal Judge ordered the President to submit a plan for moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in the next 90 days, and further, to complete the actual move within 24 months following the court’s approval of the plan.
The case, brought by a consortium of import/export firms, claimed their businesses have been financially damaged by the President’s final decision to not move the US Embassy. The plaintiffs had claimed “…the failure of the President to enforce the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 has adversely affected their revenue and also materially damaged their long-term chance of success. Specifically, the President had made campaign speeches promising to move the embassy, and they had made decisions based upon their belief of his campaign promises.
The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and was argued by the US Solicitor General. His claim was that the relocation decision is exclusively a Presidential prerogative, therefore the District Court ruling was outside its purview and had no judicial right to even consider the case. His argument was based upon Section 7-“Presidential Waiver” of the 1995 law which gives the President the authority to waive enforcement if deemed to be a “national security risk”.
In their written opinion, the Fifth Circuit specifically relied upon the recent Ninth Circuit ruling regarding the highly controversial Travel Ban Executive Order:
“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any country will perpetrate a terrorist attack in the United States based upon their failure to complete enforcement of the law,” the court said.
In a defiant rejection of the Administration’s argument that the courts lacked the right to review the president’s executive order.
“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the panel said. “Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of — and even invalidate — actions (or lack of) taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict,” the panel added.
In perhaps an unconscious nod to the historic view that courts should follow prior Supreme Court rulings, the court ended their opinion with a simple justification:
“While this opinion might seem untraditional, we believe the Ninth Circuit Court has broken new ground in the role of the Judiciary as an equal stakeholder alongside the Executive Branch as concerns foreign policy. Our decision simply treads upon the path blazed by the Ninth Circuit.”
While the 5th Circuit did not address the President’s campaign promises in detail, focusing instead on other parts of the argument, it did accept the premise of that portion of the plaintiff’s argument:
“The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions,” stated the court.”
In a show of angry defiance the Democratic Minority Leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer immediately took to the Senate floor decrying the Embassy opinion:
“The Fifth Circuit has singlehandedly managed to thrust America into a constitutional crisis”, he said. “Throughout the history of our great country, foreign policy has been the purview of the Executive Branch. By interjecting themselves into this issue, this so-called court has shown themselves to be dangerously activist and neither follows tradition nor adheres to written law.”
When reached for comment, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was characteristically blunt:
“This is yet another partisan ruling by a fringe conservative court. I mean, commonsense dictates no American should rely upon campaign statements by a politician. I’m quite confident the Administration will find success in the Supreme Court. I am very confident our party will not allow the pro-Israel lobby to dictate US policy.”
Sen. Warren’s staff did confirm she was alluding to rumors that a wealthy Christian conservative donor had funded the plaintiffs suit.
Editors Note: Everything written above is FAKE NEWS! None of this is true, not the lawsuit, not the circuit court ruling, nor the quotes from Senators Schumer or Warren. Unfortunately the only truth is the recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling.
“What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” is very old idiom. Loosely translated, it means what is allowed for one party, should be equally allowed for an opposing party.
Just as the recent changes of the filibuster rule has shown itself to be a dual-edged sword, judiciary decisions such the the Ninth Circuit Court opinion can be taken to their logical absurdity. In this case, potentially allowing any Executive action to be challenged. The courts have always recognized the absolute right of the President to make some decisions based simply upon judgement. Whether good or bad, they felt safe in allowing the citizenry the right to have final say on those decisions via the ballot box. Abrogating that right is dangerous to the extreme and violently unconstitutional.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit should have said, “This is neither sauce for either goose or gander” and would have shown wisdom by upholding rule of law.