Politics / Press Releases

Supremes Hand Down Big Wins for the Nation, says AMAC

Supreme court ruling winOne ruling reinstates the travel ban, the other further protects religious freedom

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court handed down “two big wins” for the American people this week, according to Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature American Citizens.

“If you believe in the rule of law, it came as no surprise that the Court decided that we have a right to keep potential terrorists out by vetting who we let in.  What was surprising, particularly for the disruptive forces that sought to undermine the security of the nation, that the decision was unanimous.  All nine of the Supremes, left and right, signed off on the ruling.  And, three Justices Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas noted that the President is well within his Constitutional authority to execute the order, in its entirety.”

The Court also ruled in support of the First Amendment right of religious freedom with its verdict that church run organizations could not be denied public funds simply on the basis that they are religious bodies.  The case involved Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, MO.  The church had been denied a grant from the state of Missouri for which other charitable organizations were deemed eligible.

“There is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is.  A church,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the 7-2 decision for the majority.”  He noted that “the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution … and cannot stand.”

According to Weber, the travel ban allows us to keep people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen out of the country for 90 days.  And, it imposes a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implements strong vetting procedures.  “The Supreme Court ruling lets the ban stand ‘with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States’.  In other words, individuals from the named countries  as well as refugees seeking entry into the U.S. need to show they have ties here.”

Lower courts had ordered an injunction on the ban, preventing law enforcement from executing the order and saying it violated our country’s immigration laws.  The Supreme Court decision implies that it does not violate immigration laws and is Constitutional, especially since it was a unanimous ruling, says Weber.

Foreigners from the nations identified in the ban will not be permitted to enter the country for the prescribed period of times unless they have “a close familial relationship,” work for an American company or go to school here.  And, the Court said, those situations must be “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course” and not meant to get around the ban.

“The travel ban ruling is unlikely to stop the protests and demonstrations.  After all, those who participate in that kind of disruptive behavior are single-minded when it comes to notions of right and wrong and their dislike for so-called establishment values,” Weber points out.

ABOUT AMAC

The Association of Mature American Citizens [http://www.amac.us] is a vibrant, vital senior advocacy organization that takes its marching orders from its members.  We act and speak on their behalf, protecting their interests and offering a practical insight on how to best solve the problems they face today.  Live long and make a difference by joining us today at http://amac.us/join-amac.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by John Grimaldi

25
Leave a Reply

18 Comment threads
7 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
21 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rik

These were no-brainer decisions! … in other words, the top count in the land shouldn’t have had to even consider these two items. It just goes to show you how political EVERY decision now is. Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor have no business even to be on the Court, I refer to them as Bozo, Clarabelle and Bullwinkle with the names interchangeable, fits them each. Just imagine if Hillary had won the election, we might have had Obama appointed to replace a Kennedy or Thomas. How’s that for a nightmarish thought???? I still say that ALL Justices and ALL levels of judges should be chosen from select Colleges that teach Constitutional law and principles ONLY, and ALL judicial appointments should be chosen ONLY from the best graduates of such.

G. Jacks

Absolutely incredible to me that anyone could see the ruling on immigration any other way. Why else would people who hate us and our way of life want to come here but to kill us?

dsr

Did they give any allowance to deport the ones that were granted entry before there Supreme Court decision? Did they give any legal way to sue the Hawaii and Virginia Judges who Allowed this to happen in the first place and/or a path to get at the Appeal Court Judges actions to? Did they remove them from the bench? Was any USA American citizen harmed or killed by the 2 judges actions? If so then the judges need to face criminal prosecution as killers since The Constitution is very clear and precise on who has the authority over such issues.

abel

It shouldn’t have been necessary for the SCOTUS to even have to consider these already clearly defined issues, but since they did it took them far too long to mull it over. Their function is only to check to see whether a legal question or concept conforms to the Constitution or not, not to stretch the meanings of words to wrap around some off-the-wall democrat concept to circumvent the law of the land to fit the Communist/Socialist/Progressive agenda to hinder our Constitutionally limited Republic. The Constitution is there protect our country, and to limit the government not expand it.

SueK

Unfortunately, instances like this will be the norm, no matter what Mr. Trump tries to do. It shouldn’t have been necessary to send this to the Supremes however, I think we see that no matter the issue, The Swamp will try to block it.

The ‘free stuff’ must end. People from terrorist countries must be kept out. There must be a ceiling on immigration. Lawmakers with a far left agenda which would hurt America must be voted out.

We ask ourselves how we got to this point but inherently, we all know the answer. The dumbing down of America is nearly complete; it’s time to reverse it and get our country back.

Pray for Mr. Trump.

Patti

Thank God for wonderful rulings from our Supreme Court. I’m ever so grateful for our Constitution and their governance and protection of it for our collective benefit.

Florence Dellapenta

The supreme court has ruled Unanimously to keep the travel ban and specifies why. Any lower courts cannot overrule the Supreme Court without it being heard by the Supreme court. Some people are in such denial. Being safe is one of the benefits of being a Loyal American Citizen wanting to live in peace without fear of being blown up.

Mary Smith

hopefully this will begin a trend for abolishing the Blaine amendments, separation of church and state is defined as no one religion shall be forced upon the nation, NOT, that religious institutions can not received public funds, and the President should have every means at his disposal to keep America safe from her enemies, the ban should be permanent until ISIS is destroyed

Sandi Hampton

This is such good news for the safety of our country and its citizens. It’s a sad day when we have to fight for common sense.

Carol

Somehow the children and young people of this nation have to be educated to the fact that as Americans Citizens we have a right to our culture and our borders. Illegals are not immigrants, they are invaders. Foreign nationals on our sovereign territory. And; coming to this country is a privilege not a right . As a country we have had our issues, big issues, such as slavery. But, through our democratic process we have eliminated such travesty’s. It is unfortunate that for some individuals they can’t come to grips with their personal issues such as racism, but then we can’t legislate racism out of people any more then religion can be legislated into them. There will always be backward thinking persons who go to far to the extreme of thinking everyone should be allowed into our country and those on the other extreme who don’t want any one to… Read more »

RJFL99

Is there anything that can be done to replace judges on the 9th circuit without just waiting for them to die? Time and time again the SCOTUS has to reverse their politically-motivated rulings. Congress should be able to impeach them, or at least cut off their funding. They should be reprimanded for ignoring the Constitution in their rulings.

Shafawn

It’s amazing that we have to have the Supreme Court – highest court in the land to make a ruling on laws that have not changed in over 100 years. Only since the push to create one global government that wants to exclude Judaeo-Christian values have we had to fight tooth and nail just to keep our own elected governments from breaking FEDERAL law written in the constitution! It’s so completely shameful and such a challenge not to hate liberals and everything they try to push on us.

Melinda

Not necessary to personally attack people who have risen to this level in their careers. More important is to support our current administration knowing that it will appoint conservative judges as possible. Let’s start a wave of positivity rather than getting drawn down into the quagmire of personal attacks and unhelpful insults. If you can’t come up with constructive criticisms, say nothing publicly.

EAA

So much to be thankful for. Just imagine a Franken or Shumer on the court. That’s the stuff of nightmares!

EAA

Wasn’t “The Supremes” a Black female vocal group from the 60’S?
Come now Dan, can’t we seasoned citizens keep some decorum?

Rev. Dcn Joe Pasquella

Thanks be to God for rational thinking for a change

Janelle Kavanaugh

Regarding the 120-day ban on all refugees, would it not be beneficial for the government to do a cost analysis to see whether financially it would be more beneficial to help establish areas (safe zones?) in countries closer to the refugees’ homelands. The refugees would be closer to their own customs and perhaps languages. Granted the would not have the perks found in the US, i.e., health care, food stamps, etc., etc., but all things considered, this may be a more beneficial solution for both the refugees and the US, especially when one considers the cost involved in either strategy.

dhy

Bravo!!!!!!