Sanctuary for Illegal immigrants By T.S. khanna, March 28, 2017.

-->

Foundation For Better Government,

Sanctuary for Illegal Immigrants

By T.S. Khanna, March 28,2017.

Moral credit by doing good to others can be earned only if one does so at one’s own cost without expecting or seeking a return.

Providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants is morally discreditable.  To protect those who commit a criminal act of illegally entering or living in the U.S. on expired visas is both immoral and illegal.  It is protecting the criminals at the cost of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.  It is the government’s responsibility to protect the interest of the law-abiding citizens.  Law-abiding citizens must demand it.

Here it may be noted that illegal immigrants are not only from the south of the border.  They are from other countries as well, in proportion to the opportunities and facilities they got.

It is argued that the illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for a long time or have been paying taxes should have the right to citizenship.  This is not a valid argument: first, the time does not wash off a crime, second, the U.S. is not merely a commercial center or a profit center, it is a Republic of Laws.

Federal Government’s foremost duty is to enforce law and order and protect the law-abiding citizen’s interest.

Besides tracking and chasing illegal immigrants, Federal Government may also prosecute all those who provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants.  Public officials of local governments directly or indirectly engaged in facilitating illegal immigration may also be prosecuted under the law as abetting and aiding accomplices to the criminal acts.

The President and the Judiciary By T.S. Khanna, March 13, 2017.

-->

Foundation For Better Government,

The President and the Judiciary

T.S. Khanna, March 13, 2017

The current power of the Judiciary to overrule the President’s Executive Orders is unconstitutional.  It is neither defined nor prescribed in the Constitution.

Way back in 1803, Supreme Court grabbed this undefined power through a case “Marbury v/s Madison”.  Thereafter, by precedence and unchallenged tradition, the Judiciary has retained the power of Judicial Review of the Congress Enactments and President’s Executive Orders.
(Ref: Government By Judiciary By Raoul Berger & The Myth of Neutrality in Constitutional Adjudication By A.S. Miller-R.F.Howell).

The three branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary were designed to be co-equal and independent of each other.  The Legislative branch was designed to make laws, the Executive Branch to administer laws, and, the Judiciary to adjudicate laws.

Judiciary was not designed to exercise power over the Congress or the President in restricting their powers to make laws or issue Executive Orders.  The President’s powers for Executive Orders can be defined and restricted by the Congress, not by the Judiciary.

The power to interpret or amend the Constitution is the responsibility of the elected officials answerable to the citizens, not the Judiciary without a feel for public pulse.

There are four main principles in American democracy:

1. Consent of the governed,

 2. The Rule of Law,

3. Separation of Powers and independence of the three branches of government from each other, and,

4. Sovereignty and supremacy of the will of the citizens represented by the elected officials.

The unchallenged tradition of “Judicial Review” has bestowed unconstitutional power on Judiciary over the Congress and the President.  It also violates the principles of American democracy, # 3 & # 4, indicated above.

The practice of Judicial Review must be stopped without delay.