“All that the prisoner can ever see is the shadows on the wall in front of them, which are projected as persons walk in front of the fire.
“They never see the objects or the men carrying them, nor are they aware that the shadows are shadows of other things.”
He continued: “When they see a shadow and hear a person’s voice echo from the wall, they assume that the sound is coming from the shadow, since they are not aware of the existence of anything else.
“These prisoners, then, recognize as reality only the shadows formed on the wall.”
What would happen, asks Plato, if one of these prisoners were released from his chains, were forced to stand up, turn around, and walk with eyes lifted up toward the light of the fire?
He replied thus: “All of his movement would be exceedingly painful.
“Suppose he was forced to look at the object being carried, the shadows of which he had become accustomed to seeing on the wall.
“Would he not find these actual objects less congenial to his eye and less meaning than the shadows?”
“And would not his eyes ache if he would undoubtedly try to escape from his liberator and turn back to the things he could see with clarity, being convinced that the shadows were clearer than the objects he was forced to look at in the firelight?”
Those opposed to Trump’s unique worldview of Moslems have compared him to this cave man but have asked him to grow up and become a global leader who shouldn’t discriminate against people based on religion, creed or race.
But President Donald Trump said he is much educated and vastly travelled than the cave man as captured by Plato. Donald Trump is vastly educated and owns businesses around the World.
It is left to imagination as to whether his new executive order banning some persons from entering USA makes him look like the cave man in Plato’s thoughts.
Trump said his government’s decision to ban Islamic terrorists from reaching the United States is to protect national security.
But those challenging the power of President Trump to use executive order to stop Muslims from visiting the country seems to have secured the first major court victory with the immediate suspension by a Federal Judge of the implementation of the Executive Order which Trump has immediately appealed.
What is now at play is a battle between constitutionalism and national security.
Article II of the American Constitution in Section 1 provides that:
“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
“He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term….”
Also the President certainly has the power to provide security to his nation. There’s no doubt that the USA is the number one destination for Terrorists nursing the ambition to bomb the free World.
For political historians like Clinton Rossiter, the Presidency is a one-person job .
“The Person who holds it can never escape making the final decisions in each of many areas in which the American people and their constitution hold him or her responsible”.
It is believed that the executive powers of the President are extensive.
The United States of America’s President “selects the key figures in the military establishment, including the secretary of Defence, the Secretaries of Army, Navy and Air force, and the military Chiefs of Staff.
“He recommends the defense budget to congress and administer laws pertaining to the defense of the nations” (See The New Websters dictionary of the English Language; International edition; 2004).
Supporters of Donald Trump believe that the executive order was not a ban on Muslims but is a measure urgently needed to stave off the threats of imminent terror attacks targeting the homeland.
The ball is in the courts of federal judges to determine the distinction between the Presidential executive powers vis-a-vis the issue of adopting measures to safeguard national security.
Donald Trump said he was primarily elected to create jobs and to protect the United States. He alluded to the suspicion that judges are using politics to strip him off these powers.
He said he still reposes hope on the American judiciary. He has directed and indeed his justice officials are right now at the Appeal court to seek the restoration of the executive order.
Article 111 section 1 says ‘the judicial power of the United States of America shall be vested in one Supreme court and in such inferior courts as the congress may time to time ordain and establish”.
America operates the principles of separations of power. This explains why the battle front is in the Court as we write.
According to Cable News Network (CNN), three federal judges grilled lawyers from the Justice Department and Washington state Tuesday night as they considered whether to lift a US-wide block on President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
The appeals court judges interfaced with attorneys over the President’s use of sweeping executive power, questioned the connection between the seven affected countries and terrorism, and launched into tough questions over whether the ban discriminated against Muslims.
During the telephone hearing, the lawyer representing the Justice Department, August Flentje, argued that the President had wide powers relating to immigration and national security.
He contended that federal judges did not have the power to review Trump’s executive order, which bars citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days.
It also prevents entry for all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts the admission of refugees from Syria.
From the start, Flentje repeatedly sought to emphasize the government’s position that a lower court acted beyond his powers when it suspended the President’s executive order last Friday.
Flentje argued that the President acted within his constitutional powers.
“This is a traditional national security judgment that is assigned to the political branches and the President and the court’s order immediately altered that,” Flentje argued.
The three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pressed Flentje on whether the government could show that the seven countries affected by Trump’s ban were connected to terrorism.
“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism,” asked Judge Michelle Friedland.
Flentje, special counsel to the assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, countered that the lower court had overruled the President’s judgment about the level of risk from those countries.
“The district court’s decision overrides the President’s national security judgment about the level of risk and we’ve been talking about the level of risk that’s acceptable,” he said.
Whilst we await the decision it is safe to state that it may be difficult for the court system to void the Presidential executive powers to safeguard national security but Mr. Trump may have to redesign his executive order to remove any suspicions of deliberately targeting travellers based on religion, creed, or race.
How on Earth can anyone argue that the President lacks power to ban aliens from entering the USA when ordinary immigration officials working under the executive arm of government are the issuing authority of entry visas?
*Emmanuel Onwubiko is Head of HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (HURIWA) and blogs @ firstname.lastname@example.org ; www.emmanuelonwubiko.com