Ninth Circuit Keeps Trump Travel Ban On Hold

Ninth Circuit Keeps Trump Travel Ban On Hold

The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the Trump Administration’s motion to stay the temporary restraining order on President Trump’s Executive Order Travel Ban. The Ban’s full title is “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

Supporters of President Trump (and the President himself) will attempt to paint the ruling as a purely political decision. Further, some will claim that this ruling means Constitutional rights apply to all people, not just U.S. citizens.

Balderdash.

First, the court clearly defines who receives due process rights based on precedent. They include permanent residents, previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States, and aliens who are in the United States unlawfully (p. 23 ¶ 3.) That last one will upset some people but it is precedent from Zadyydas v. Davis.

That first point means the President’s team did a poor job writing the Executive Order, per the court ruling. They could have stopped all visa issuance for those seven countries, but because the order didn’t carve out exceptions for the three categories above, the order didn’t meet Constitutional requirements.

Second, this ruling never even got to the question of national security and the President’s “good cause” ability to circumvent certain rules. It failed before even getting there.

Third, for those who think the Constitution is a static document and exists only in a vacuum as it was originally written, you don’t understand how the law works. We start with the Constitution which is a framework, then the legislature writes laws that extending how our country functions, and then courts hand down rulings determining the validity of those laws while interpreting and applying the facts of cases setting precedent. That is an exceptionally simplistic description of how it works.

So, just because you read the Constitution and think you know exactly what it says, you don’t. Have you read all the U.S. Supreme Court cases that give you an idea of how it all actually works? If not, then you are mistaken.

Fear not, our system works. If you are happy with today’s decision, then it works well. If you are mad about today’s decision, ask President Trump to have his team rewrite the Executive Order so it can withstand the court challenges. And if you don’t like how the system works, vote and ask for change.

But most of all, it is not the end of the world today. Our Constitutional system is reasonably intact while our broken duopoly of a political setup continues to duke it out in Washington D.C.

CNN Newsroom LA – Trump Travel Ban

I had the honor of joining host John Vause at Newsroom LA on CNN and CNN International the night of January 30/31, 2017 to discuss President Trump‘s seven country travel, immigration, and refugee ban.

Also on the panel and in-studio were attorney Mark Geragos, senior political analyst Ron Brownstein, and California RNC Committeeman Shawn Steel.

Take a look and let me know what you think of my comments, particularly that this is being done to distract, divide, and conquer.

Listen to my daily KGO 810 radio show 12-2pm Pacific www.kgoradio.com

Ethan Explains California Proposition 65 and 67

Ethan Explains California Proposition 65 and 67 – Plastic Bag Ban Money

This is numbers 15 & 16 of 17 of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Both are related to the California statewide plastic bag ban and what to do with the money. Proposition 65 is the “Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund Initiative.” Proposition 67 is the “California Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum.”

Proposition 65 sends the money that grocers collect, by law, for the paper bags and sends it to the California Treasury for management by the Wildlife Conservation Board.

Proposition 67 lets the grocery stores keep the money.

Since the plastic bag ban was to help save the oceans and environment from plastic pollution, doesn’t it make sense to spend the money on environmental programs?

I never understood why grocers were forced by law to charge for the brown paper bags. Why not let them compete and make it a value added service? Instead it became a government mandated revenue stream. I want to keep plastic bags out of the ocean, the beaches, and the rest of the environment. But, since our legislators decided on forcing a charge for paper bags, let that money go to environmental programs.

I say YES to Prop 65 and NO to Prop 67.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Santa Cruz County Implements Moratorium On Gun Shops

SC BoS Public Hearing
Overflow Crowd

Yesterday I attended the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors public comment hearing on a moratorium for new gun/ammunition stores. This is a very heated topic in light of the recent series of high profile shootings and the public let their voice be heard. However, it is clear in the final 5 to 0 vote in favor of the moratorium that the Supes had their minds made up beforehand.

Yes, indeed there wasn’t a thought put into the public hearing. If there was any influence by the public whatsoever, at least one supervisor would have voted against the moratorium. I counted 117 people in attendance at one moment and over half the speakers were passionately against the moratorium.

I discussed this topic as host of KSCO Presents yesterday on air with surprise callers and a guest. Listen online or download from the podcast site right HERE