RYAN: 1952 IMMIGRATION LAW POSES “LEGAL” QUESTION
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 18, 2016) — In a face-to-face interview with The Huffington Post’s Matt Fuller posted on Friday, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI1) said that regardless of who occupies the White House, he wishes to “reclaim Article I powers” of Congress, referring to the first section of the U.S. Constitution outlining the legislative body’s requirements and responsibilities.
Ryan told Fuller that Article I designates Congress as separate from the Executive branch, which is governed by Article II.
Article III of the Constitution details the Judicial branch as comprising “one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Article I is the longest and most detailed of the seven Articles of the Constitution, enumerating specific congressional powers in Section 8. In addition to those enumerated powers, it has long been established that Congress has the authority to carry out investigations, sometimes called “inquiries,” into the conduct of the executive and judicial branches, as in the case of the deaths of four Americans on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya and the “targeting” of certain organizations by the IRS beginning in 2010.
On Friday, WND, Breitbart News, and TPM, among many others, published reports about Ryan’s interview, conducted in his Capitol Hill office, claiming that “Paul Ryan Threatens To Sue Trump Over Immigration” or some variation thereof.
But that is not what Ryan said.
For readers’ edification, at the bottom of the HuffPo article expounding on the interview is the statement:
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar,rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.
On Monday, HuffPo published an article titled, “Trump’s Campaign Strategy Is An Off-Track Mess.”
Whether or not HuffPo’s standards adhere to the journalistic tenets of neutrality are left to the reader to decide.
Fuller began the interview by asking Ryan, “What do you say to your kids?” in apparent response to Ryan’s statement early this month that he “will vote” for Donald Trump despite Trump’s unconventional campaign and politically-incorrect statements.
Some believe that Ryan’s “endorsement” was a rather tepid one. “Donald Trump and I have talked at great length about things such as the proper role of the executive and fundamental principles such as the protection of life. The list of potential Supreme Court nominees he released after our first meeting was very encouraging,” Ryan wrote in a column dated June 2 in which he said he would cast his vote for Trump in November.
At the same time, Ryan wrote that the impending conclusion of Obama’s tenure in the White House presented an opportunity for Republicans to “start introducing a series of policy proposals that address the American people’s top priorities.” “The concept from the start was simple: If we had a Republican president ready to sign bills into law, what would we do?” Ryan said.
Ryan told Fuller that he does not wish to see “another Democrat in the White House” because it would preclude Republicans from accomplishing their agenda. In response to Fuller’s question as to what Ryan would “say to his kids,” Ryan said of Trump, “He won the votes…We have elections. This man won the election…as an institutional person, meaning Speaker of the House, I feel like the responsibilities that come with my job are to try and unify the party…”
“Is that what you tell your kids, though?” Fuller pressed with a laugh, to which Ryan said, “My kids haven’t asked me that question.”
Ryan’s district website does not state the ages of his children. Ryan is currently 46.
The newly-unveiled Republican agenda, formally announced as “a Better Way” on June 7, includes such priorities as “a better tax code” and “spurring the economy and creating jobs.” Plans also encompass “repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a better system, more focused on patients, choices and lower costs. We’ll offer a plan to restore the Constitution and the separation of powers that decades of executive overreach have eroded. We’ll present the ideal national security and foreign policy to keep Americans safe.”
“I’m going to keep being me,” Ryan asserted to Fuller, addressing the possibility that the ongoing campaign might cause division between Trump and him, as in Ryan’s disavowal of Trump’s description of the federal judge presiding over a lawsuit against his now-defunct “Trump University” as “Mexican.”
In response, Ryan publicly stated that Trump’s characterization of Judge Gonzalo Curiel is the “textbook definition of a racist comment,” while congressional Republicans and others joined in the condemnation. However, a Boston radio show host opined that because of Curiel’s heritage and professional associations, “He is a rogue judge whose allegiance and political affiliation is not to America, but Mexico. He may be born in Indiana. His heart, however, is in Mexico City.”
As reported exclusively by GotNews.com, Curiel’s parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born. He is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California, whose website contains a link to the National Council of La Raza, a pro-Latino group which has made its anti-Trump stance clear.
At 4:40 in the video, Fuller quoted Trump to Ryan as having said, “I can unilaterally do a Muslim ban,” to which Ryan responded, “I don’t know if that’s exactly what his quote was.” “Obviously, we don’t believe in executive overreach; it’s one of the planks of our agenda,” Ryan replied.
“We are a separate but equal branch of government, and don’t think for a second we’re not going to stand up for the legislative branch’s prerogatives and priorities,” Ryan said. “There’s a question about the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act which is about whether that act gave the president discretion on certain things. That’s a legal question that there’s a good debate about. But on the broader question, ‘Are we going to exert our Article I powers and reclaim this Article I power no matter who the president is? Absolutely,” Ryan concluded.
At 4:57, Fuller pressed Ryan again as to whether or not he is “concerned to see a Republican nominee who says these things like, ‘I can build a wall with or without Congress; I can ban Muslims'”? referring to Trump’s expressed desire in December to stop immigrants and “refugees” from predominantly-Muslim countries from entering the country until a better vetting process can be put in place.
In the wake of the murders of 49 people at a nightclub on Sunday morning by an Islamic radical who had traveled to Saudi Arabia on two occasions and reportedly showed violent tendencies as a child, the issue of Syrian and other Muslim “refugees” has been reignited as the presidential and other elections draw nearer.
Ryan stated that presidents before Obama have overstepped their authority, after which Fuller again asked, “Would you sue Trump or would you impeach him if he exceeds…” to which Ryan spoke over him to respond, …By the way, I’ve got like three or four of them with Barack Obama right now. This isn’t partisan; this is principle.”
A lawsuit filed following the passage of a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives nearly two years ago under then-Speaker John Boehner focuses on Obama’s unilateral changes to “Obamacare,” the health care law passed in March 2010 without a single Republican “yea” vote. On May 12 of this year, a federal judge ruled that payments made to health insurers not authorized by Congress, a key point of the lawsuit, are “unconstitutional.” It was expected that the Obama regime would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Obama overstepped his authority in the case of presidential appointees without the Senate’s “advice and consent” while the Senate was still in session and that property owners have a right to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cases heard in both 2012 and 2016.
The EPA has been carrying out Obama’s “climate change” agenda in pushing for a reduction in methane emissions, the use of fossil fuels, and enforcement, perhaps overreaching, of the Clean Water Act.
Obama’s unilateral “executive actions” on immigration are now before the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge imposed a temporary injunction on February 16, 2015 and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled them unconstitutional. Attorneys for the regime were subsequently found to have lied about the implementation of a provision of the proposed expansion to “DACA,” a 2012 program created by Obama by another “executive action” which allowed young undocumented people allegedly brought to the U.S. by their parents to avoid deportation if approved.
Articles of Impeachment composed in July 2014 naming Obama in the commission of “usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud;” “Malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office;” and “Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States” have been delivered to the members of the House but not acted upon.
TPM’s article written about the interview, titled “Paul Ryan On Stopping A President Trump’s Muslim Ban: We’ll Sue Him!” contains an “update” which reads, “Ryan’s office disputes the headline of this story” followed by “’We believe this headline is flagrantly wrong, which is made clear when actually reading the speaker’s quotes,’ Ryan spokesperson AshLee Strong said via email.”
Ryan’s interview echoed some of his statements made during a Thursday news conference wherein he said, “We represent a separate but equal branch of government” and “I’m going to be myself and speak up in defense of our principles.”
While Trump has been sharply criticized, including by Ryan and some congressional Republicans, for stating his desire to halt Muslim immigration if he were to win the White House in order to prevent terrorists from infiltrating the U.S., Obama has escalated the importation of the same demographic, with 441 having arrived since the Orlando nightclub atrocity.
On Tuesday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott said in a Fox News interview that the Obama regime has not shared with him the background information of the Syrian “refugees,” totaling 49, brought into Florida out of the 441.
Ryan is seeking re-election to a tenth term in the House and is facing an August 9 primary against challenger Paul Nehlen. On Friday Breitbart and Jeff Crouere of Ringside Politics opined that Ryan’s views are more ideologically aligned with Hillary Clinton than with Trump.
During the last minute of the interview, Fuller asked Ryan if Congress has “a moral responsibility” to pass a new “AUMF” (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) given that the most recent measure was passed in the wake of the 9-11 attacks in 2001. “I’m not going to bring an AUMF to the floor that ties the hands of the next president,” Ryan said, which Ryan said Obama wants.
The Post & Email questions the accuracy of the widely-repeated claim that Ryan’s stated intention to Fuller is to “sue” Trump in response to a hypothetical “Muslim ban.” We found, however, that Breitbart is correct in that the authority for the president to restrict “the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States” is stated in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which Ryan characterized to Fuller as “a legal issue.”
The law states that “inadmissible” aliens are those who, after determination by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), harbor “a communicable disease of public health significance,” “have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others,” “have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other harmful behavior,” or “who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to be a drug abuser or addict.”
Over the last four years, in particular, the Obama regime has allowed children and adults with head lice, scabies, tuberculosis, emotional and mental health issues, and other undiagnosed diseases to enter the country and achieve temporary resettlement at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. In April, The Washington Times reported that this year, “illegal immigrant families [are] crossing [the] border at [a] record pace.”
Editor’s Note: The Post & Email is an independent publication which depends on advertising and donations to continue its unique work. If you found this report, which required more than eight hours to research and write, helpful and more accurate than the myriad, carbon-copy articles published on the topic on Friday, please consider supporting us here.