Category: Serious Stuff

The judiciary can interfere with presidential executive power under certain circumstances. In the case of United States v. Nixon in 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the president is not above the law and that executive privilege does not shield the president from providing evidence in a criminal investigation.This decision established that the judiciary has the authority to review and potentially limit the exercise of executive power when it interferes with the judicial process.

Courts generally do not create private rights of action based on executive orders unless the President intended to create a justiciable right. However, when executive orders are derived from congressional statutes, courts might look to the original statute to determine if Congress intended to empower the judiciary to enforce any rules established by executive order.

In summary, while the judiciary respects the separation of powers, it can intervene when necessary to ensure that executive actions do not infringe upon the judicial process or violate the law.

Follow-up (2nd): You don’t seem to address the ex-parte nature of the judicial order. Please address specifically the validity of an EX PARTE order interfering with presidential executive power. 

An ex parte order, which is a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party, does not inherently interfere with presidential executive power.However, if an ex parte order improperly restricts or limits executive actions, it could be seen as interfering with the president’s authority. The president’s executive orders must still comply with constitutional and legal frameworks, and any order that violates these principles can be challenged and potentially invalidated by the courts.

Therefore, an ex parte order that is deemed to be interfering with or exceeding the jurisdiction of presidential executive powerwould be subject to legal scrutiny and could be invalidated if found to be unlawful.

Follow-up (3d) What has SCOTUS said in the matter of ex parte judiciary orders interfering with a sitting president’s executive power

Nothing yet. 

Follow-up (4th) Is immigration within the jurisdiction of presidential executive power?

Yes, immigration is within the jurisdiction of presidential executive power. The President, as head of the federal executive branch, has the authority to enforce the immigration laws of the United States and can adopt temporary, discretionary measures to curtail deportations.This power is derived from Congress delegating broad authority to the Executive Branch, which allows the President to make significant decisions regarding immigration enforcement and policy.

For example, the President can issue Executive Orders that affect immigration, such as the one issued on June 17, 2024, which requires noncitizens to have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen to be eligible for certain protections.

However, the President’s power is not absolute. Executive Orders cannot violate the Constitution, and Congress can override them by passing new legislation, subject to a presidential veto.Additionally, the courts may overturn unauthorized executive decisions that fall outside the scope of the authority granted by Congress.

In summary, whilethe President has significant discretion in immigration matters,this power is subject to limitations imposed by Congress and judicial oversight.

Follow-up (5th): So, how does the birthright-citizenship-order violate the constitution? Most countries do not recognize birthright citizenship anyway. 

The birthright citizenship order issued by President Donald Trump has been blocked by a third federal judge, who ruled that it violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.According to ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, the order is a “fundamental attack on the Constitution” as it seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, which is guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.The clause states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” , and the Supreme Court has previously ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that this clause guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

• 14th Amendment: The amendment guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof 

• Citizenship Clause: The clause states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside 

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark: The Supreme Court case confirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status

Follow-up (6th): When was the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment created?

The 14th Amendment was created onJune 13, 1866, when the House approved a Senate-proposed version of the amendment, sending it to the states for approval.It was ratified on July 9, 1868, becoming a constitutional cornerstone.

The Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment was created and adopted onJuly 9, 1868, during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War.

Activists obstructing ICE and aiding Tren de Aragua to avoid law enforcement is a complex issue.According to Tom Homan, the US border czar, activist groups are crossing the line from protesting to impeding federal law enforcement operations.He stated that he is working with the Department of Justice to determine when these groups cross this line and vowed to prosecute those who obstruct ICE’s efforts.Homan emphasized that interfering with ICE operations puts their officers and the aliens at great risk.In a recent incident, protesters in Aurora taunted ICE and advised illegal alien criminals on dodging federal agents.Some protesters even used megaphones to give instructions on how to evade ICE agents.The situation is further complicated by the fact that some cities, like Denver, have sanctuary policies that can act as a magnet for illegal aliens.Homan has made it clear that he will not tolerate obstruction and will seek prosecution.

• Trade-Based Money Laundering: Cartels use trade transactions to legitimize and move illicit funds. This includes over-invoicing or under-invoicing goods, phantom shipments, and falsifying customs, shipping, and trade finance documents. For example, Colombian cartels have laundered millions of dollars by over-invoicing emeralds, where inferior stones are made to appear valuable to customs inspectors.
• Professional Money Laundering: Professional money launderers, who are not part of the criminal organizations but provide services to them, use their knowledge and networks to facilitate money laundering. They often operate through trading companies or money services businesses, which can include real estate transactions, setting up shell corporations, and trust accounts.
• Money Services Businesses (MSBs): Some MSBs in Canada are exploited by professional money launderers to place and transfer illicit funds. These businesses provide financial services that can be used to launder money, especially when they turn a blind eye to criminal activities or actively cooperate with criminals.
• Legal Profession: Canadian lawyers are implicated in money laundering schemes, often creating corporate structures like shell companies to hide dirty cash and conceal asset ownership. These activities can be shielded by solicitor-client privilege, making it difficult for financial intelligence agencies like Fintrac to track the flow of illicit funds.

These methods highlight the complexity and sophistication of money laundering activities by cartels in Canada, involving multiple sectors and professions.

TD Bank Bust

TD Bank cooperated with drug cartels through systemic failures in its anti-money laundering (AML) procedures. According to the US Department of Justice (DOJ), the bank failed to properly monitor transactions, allowing drug cartels to launder significant amounts of money. Specifically, the DOJ highlighted several instances of misconduct:

• Underreporting of Suspicious Transactions: More than 90% of transactions went unmonitored between January 2018 and April 2024, which enabled three money laundering networks to transfer over $670 million through TD Bank accounts.
• Gift Card Bribery: In one case, TD Bank employees collected over $57,000 worth of gift cards to process more than $470 million in cash deposits from a money laundering network. This was done to ensure employees would continue to process these transactions without declaring them in required reports.
• Ignoring Internal Warnings: Internal audit groups repeatedly highlighted concerns about the bank’s transaction monitoring program between 2014 and 2022, but the program remained largely stagnant, suffering from chronic underfunding and understaffing.

These failures allowed drug cartels to exploit the bank’s services for money laundering activities, leading to the record-breaking $3 billion fine and other penalties.

Sanctuary cities are often criticized for having higher rates of drug-related overdoses due to perceived immunity given to drug cartels and criminal aliens. Critics argue that sanctuary policies prevent local law enforcement from effectively collaborating with federal immigration agencies, which are better equipped to combat drug trafficking. This collaboration is hindered by sanctuary policies that limit communication and cooperation between local and federal agencies, making it harder to apprehend and deport criminal aliens involved in drug trafficking.

For example, the Sinaloa cartel and other Mexican drug cartels are known to smuggle drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border and distribute them through networks often staffed by illegal aliens. Sanctuary policies can enable these networks to operate more freely within sanctuary cities, contributing to the rise in drug-related overdoses.

Moreover, some sanctuary cities have been identified as regional hubs for drug distribution. For instance, Minneapolis has been described as a meth distribution hub, and cities like Lawrence, Massachusetts, are known for being fentanyl distribution centers. These cities have high rates of drug overdoses, which are often linked to the presence of drug cartels and criminal networks.

In summary, the higher rates of drug-related overdoses in sanctuary cities are attributed to the reduced ability of law enforcement to effectively combat drug trafficking due to limited cooperation with federal agencies and the presence of drug cartels and criminal networks.