The court went on to say:
There is no precedent to support this claimed
unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental
structure of our constitutional democracy. Within our system,
it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty
that will sometimes require the ``[r]esolution of litigation
challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three
branches.'' We are called upon to perform that duty in this
case. Further they say: ``Although our jurisprudence has long counseled
deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and
national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever
held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those
arenas for compliance with the Constitution.''
That is an extraordinary set of statements that the government made,
saying that the President's actions are unreviewable in this regard. They further go on to say: ``Nonetheless, `courts are not powerless
to review the political branches' actions' with respect to matters of
national security.''
It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we
would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which make the
defense of the Nation worthwhile. Well, I fully agreed with the circuit court's determination in that
regard. It goes on to say: ``In short, although courts owe considerable
deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to
immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the
Federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional
challenges to executive action.''
Well, all I can say is, thank God. Thank God that the courts of the
United States feel that they are not controlled by the executive branch
in pursuing the decisions that are made. This is a great day for
democracy in our country and for the preservation of the separation of
powers.
Keywords matched
immigration