see that. it is good move for him to reissue order. he can t lose this one. his campaign was bedrocked on this. brian: secretary of homeland security, general kelly, with two weeks to understand how to implement and communicate to everybody around the world what our new policy is especially in the seven nations. this shouldn t be much of a problem. don t you agree let green cardholders in. prekorean people with thumbs up and make room for fixers that helped us in iraq? the green cardholders, translators, that will get rid of due process problems he they had in court but it will be very hard if they model the language precisely as it is in 1182-f, any reason, any length of time if the president chooses to ban people coming from the country, it will be tough for the courts to say no. they will make fools of themselves. we have a problem with judicial activism in this country.
to the supreme court, so where the white house vote in a white house memorandum that green card holders, visa holders would not be subject to this extreme vetting order, to the executive order, that came to the white house counsel s office. saying that s not the same as coming through an agency. what we say is, put a definitive, in the order itself, put a definitive language, write what they said the problem was, then put a specific date, so there is no, my question when it comes into effect. the president has that authorit authority. the ninth circuit didn t even bother to cite the law here. they didn t even bother. they ignored it completely. sean: 1182. i think this is bulletproof. i don t know the ninth circuit will do, they may rule against it because that is where they are politically. stolen by any standard. great stuff, thank you for explaining it. this is really important.
to the supreme court, so where the white house vote in a white house memorandum that green card holders, visa holders would not be subject to this extreme vetting order, to the executive order, that came to the white house counsel s office. saying that s not the same as coming through an agency. what we say is, put a definitive, in the order itself, put a definitive language, write what they said the problem was, then put a specific date, so there is no, my question when it comes into effect. the president has that authorit authority. the ninth circuit didn t even bother to cite the law here. they didn t even bother. they ignored it completely. sean: 1182. i think this is bulletproof. i don t know the ninth circuit will do, they may rule against it because that is where they are politically. stolen by any standard. great stuff, thank you for explaining it. this is really important. you get to a police state, if
initial roll-out of the executive order was regarding visa holders, those with green cards which was clarified through a white house memorandum. the ninth circuit said it doesn t have the same binding effect and impact as an add min isive agency or the executive order itself. i ve said the simple way to solve it. put that language about visa and green card holders legally entitled to be in the united states. put that in the executive order in the four corners of the document. it clarifies the one area that the ninth circuit dinged at. they never cited the law that authorizes the president, 1182f of the code that authorizes the president to determine who gets into the united states and who doesn t. that will be significant. the ninth circuit has put the entire case on hold after the
terrorism in such thing as jew dish issue supremacy. what the judges did was take power for themselves that belongs squarely in the hands of the president of the united states. well, you say that very definitively, but there s not agreement upon that. why are you so confident that, for instance, you believe there is a 1952 law that gives the president the power to decide who can come in and out of this country on a temporary basis. why do you believe that law supersedes 1965 that says you cannot essentially decides who comes in based on origin? it s a great question, and i ll answer it in full. first of all, we know that the 1952 law, referring to 212f, 1182f because if they did not have controlling supremacy between the two clause, that would mean, chuck, in a time of war, that the president of the united states couldn t suspend