ぼやかせていただいております。

”The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty”

2017年02月09日 01時39分45秒 | Weblog


今回の大統領令について保守の主張。政府の主張でもあり、判例をあげながら説得している。

First, Judge Robart is trespassing on a core executive responsibility. “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court held in the 1950 Knauff case, “inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” The courts are not meant to second-guess the executive’s conduct of foreign affairs, or intrude on its plenary power in this area. “It is not within the province of any court,” the court noted in that decision, “unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

Second, it’s hard to get around the relevant federal immigration law, which says, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Finally, aliens residing outside the United States have no right to come here. The Supreme Court held in the 1982 Landon case, “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”


外国人の排除は、主権国家の根本的な行為であり、その権限は、執行権に属する。法の定めなしに司法が、外国人の排除について審査できない。大統領が、ある種の外国人の入国が米国に危険であると判断したら、入国に関して適切な制限をすることができるし、そもそも、国外に住んでいる外国人は、アメリカに入国する憲法上の権利はない、と。

これに対して、反対側は、
Why Judge Robart Blocked the Muslim Ban

There’s no constitutional way to implement an unconstitutional order.

By Mark Joseph Stern


Most other judges to consider the ban so far have found that it violates the due-process rights of immigrants already in the United States and those who were on their way into the country when the order was signed. Robart went far beyond that rather narrow question of law, finding that the entire order is likely unconstitutional, presumably because it is irrational and motivated by unlawful anti-Muslim animus.

Even if the administration were to somehow execute the ban in a way that respects its targets’ due-process rights, it would still run afoul of basic equal protection and First Amendment principles. Simply put, there is no constitutional way to implement an unconstitutional order.


適正手続が守られていないケースがあること、また、大統領令が不合理で、違憲であり、違憲の大統領令を合憲的に実行する方法はないのだ、と。

ジャンル:
ウェブログ
コメント   この記事についてブログを書く
この記事をはてなブックマークに追加
«  the % of women in the labo... | トップ | Most Europeans want immigra... »
最近の画像もっと見る

コメントを投稿

Weblog」カテゴリの最新記事