by Robert M. Traxler
A federal judge in Hawaii, Judge Derrick Watson, struck down President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from six predominantly Muslim countries.
These countries have a track record of supporting international terrorists. The rationale for nullifying the order was that as a candidate for President, Mr. Trump said he wanted to ban all Muslim immigration. It is a slam dunk fact Mr. Trump did say that.
The presidential order in front of Judge Watson made no reference to religion, and bans immigration of less than 5% of the world’s Muslims (1.3 billion are not banned, 45 times the U.S. population), based on nationality and not religion.
Let’s take a look at the very dangerous assault on our freedoms that Judge Watson’s decision represents. A principle in American law is called “within the four corners,” meaning what is written on the legal document in front of the judge. The document or contract must stand alone on what is contained within it. The same principle is practiced in criminal prosecution as well; words not entered in evidence are not before a judge and cannot be considered in guilt or innocence.
If you or I told someone we wanted to rob a bank but were arrested for shoplifting, should a judge then be able to convict us for the more serious crime of bank robbery? To establish legal precedents based on statements that folks made to others in the press or on a political campaign should terrify us all.
The American left, the self-proclaimed defenders of the First Amendment to the constitution, are cheering Judge Watson’s decision; he has been called a brilliant legal mind and a courageous judge. The left needs to step back and look at the decision and its impact on free speech.
Madonna stated publicly she wanted to blow up the White House; should 
she be taken to federal court and charged for her words? Not in a country with the First Amendment in effect she shouldn’t.
An old saying is beware of what you wish for, for you may get it. The left found an activist judge on the liberal side; next time the activist judge may be on the conservative side. We have been moving legally to punishing speech for years now; the courts have said “fighting words” justify assault. The use of offensive language is just wrong, but has a chilling effect on free speech and the rule of law if we allow physical assault as the lawful answer to offensive language.
A sizeable percentage of Americans are incensed that President Trump was elected, I get it. But to attack the constitutional right of free speech in order to resist him is a very dangerous place to find our nation. The exceptionally odd thing is that before President Trump, the left prided itself on being the defenders of the First Amendment; the ACLU defended the American National Socialist Party’s right to free speech even the most offensive, vile, hate speech.
Every American should applaud defending the First Amendment. I spent nine years overseas and can tell you our right to free speech must be sacred, it must be guarded and defended or we will turn into a socialist nation not unlike China, Russia or North Korea with free speech being set by the government.
The left did a similar thing in blowing up the 60-vote rule in the Senate to confirm President Obama’s presidential nominees. That error will see one, and probably two, Supreme Court nominees the left does not want confirmed as the result of their short-sighted actions.
Free speech, political speech in particular, is a critical part of our democracy and must be protected at all costs.
