Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: Judges, Congress and President

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The above is all that I could find constitutionally relevant to the U.S. president’s much ridiculed travel ban, ridiculed everywhere but communist China and socialist (maybe still communist) Russia. I first sought it when Mr. Trump, during the primaries, threatened banning people from countries he believed encouraged terrorism. Since the Seattle judge has temporarily stopped President Trump’s stopping immigrants from  entering the U.S.A., I had expected that his ruling would be based on the above pasted Section 9 of the U.S. constitution. And now that his ban has been stopped by a judge my review of Section 9 has highlighted the term “Congress” implying that this section can justify countering a Congressional ban but not one made law by a president.

Section 9 does not seem to be the basis of the Washington-based judge’s judgement temporarily restraining President Trump’s temporary immigration ban.

Today is February 17, 2017. I’ve had 2 weeks to digest everything that’s been promulgated about President Trump’s executive order banning people from the 7 countries that the Obama administration had carefully considered places where terrorism was exported from. I’ve also heard that the president had wanted a one month warning period before the ban was effected but that police  had warned against giving the bad guys a month to get into the U.S. ahead of the ban. Whether true or not I heard him say just that at his televised press briefing yesterday Feb. 16. His criticism, the tone of which may be brazen, of the judges decisions in these matters I take seriously to the extent that his sister is a judge. For all reports that the ban was unconstitutional express a kind of willful ignorance since none of the challenges and none of the judicial decisions refer to the constitution of the United States of America.