There is a reason you don’t get your constitutional law from late night ‘comedians’. To the surprise of absolutely no one, late night host Stephen Colbert has a problem with the Supreme Court’s for ruling Tuesday to uphold President Donald Trump’s travel ban. In an opening two minute bit, he took issue with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that he did not take into account Trump’s prior anti-Muslim comments when determining the legality of the president’s third iteration of the travel ban.
Colbert likened the approach to a lawyer arguing that a murderer couldn’t be found guilty if a judge ignored the existence of the weapon.
″Well, sure, if you set aside everything he said, it’s legal,” Colbert said. “That’s like a lawyer saying, ’My client is innocent, your honor, as long as you set aside the bloody knife he was holding while he screamed, ‘I loves me some murdering!’
What was even funnier than that bit was Colbert’s complete lack of understanding of the United States Constitution. Let’s start with Colbert assumption that Trump’s campaign comments should have been taken into effect with this decision. The only way you could even think campaign comments have any bearing on constitutional law is if you believe that Trump’s travel ban is indeed a ‘Muslim ban’ as the media and the left insists.
The reality is that it isn’t. Only 6 of 49 Muslim majority countries are on the list. The banned countries are Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. To put this in perspective, if you go to the state department website, all of these countries (with the exception of Venezuela which is currently Stage 3) are listed as Stage 4 travel advisories, meaning that you are not permitted to travel to these countries due to threats of terrorism. Americans who decide to travel to these countries are advised to draft a will before travel on the likely chance, you could be killed inside the country. So this nonsense that the media has been telling you about a ‘Muslim ban’ in reality a two-way travel ban on the most dangerous countries on Earth…fact.
This is why the supreme court refused to take Trump’s campaign comments into account which was the basis of the state of Hawaii’s initial block of the ban. Secondly, what progressives like Colbert don’t seem to understand is that the job of the Supreme Court is to evaluate whether the policy itself violated the Constitution or other federal law, not whether Trump’s motivations were worthy of criticism. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, which empowers Congress, “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Combined with Congress’s shared power with the president to govern the foreign policy of the nation, this provision gives the two elected branches discretion on who enters this country, how long they can stay, under what conditions, and by what process some of them can become citizens.
But hey guys, remember when late-night comedians use to be funny and tell jokes? Pepperidge Farm remembers…