Breaking: 9th Circuit Issues Ruling Not To Protect America's Sovereignty

[jillian]

Why is this court reviewing, and then ruling on something that is legal, and right to do under the Constitution ?? It appears that the left once again is trying to rule this nation by proxy, and in this case it used the 9th circuit to cause troubles for Americans. Might be getting near to Trump calling for Marshall Law in this country, because it appears that there are those here who are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation, and that is unexceptable to most Americans on what is going on now.

"Might be getting near to Trump calling for Marshall Law in this country, because it appears that there are those here who are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation"

What you said, I just pointed this out myself before in this thread and I cited the exact part of the US Constitution where President Trump can put America under Martial Law.

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Also Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution states:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You never answered how the president is granted authority to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally from Article 1 of the Constitution which grants powers to the Congress and not the executive.

Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president.

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions."

Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution it declares that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress.

So, in other words, the Constitution does not grant that power to the president whatsoever, and Chief Justice Taney was correct in Ex Parte Merryman that the president may not do so unilaterally.

Only if you ignore 8 US code 1182 (f)

any statute has to be constitutional AS APPLIED and the constitution ALWAYS overrides the statutes. (see the supremacy clause). thanks.

 

[JimBowie1958]

boo hoo. you haven't earned my compassion after pissing away any residual compassion i have for every human being.

Ah, I see what a turd you are now.

Well, welcome to my ignore list as well.

 

[beagle9]

You know how to post a link but apparently you don't understand the articles you are posting. Here is the law the Seattle judge and the Appellate Court chose to ignore.

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are judges who have decided to abandon their legal responsibilities and tried to legislate from the bench.

On what basis has the President made such a determination? You're not on a war footing with any of these nations. You haven't been attacked by anyone from these countries. Does the President even know what he's doing with this ban. The courts are correct in asking all of these questions, in light of the President's oft-stated preference for halting Muslim immigration.

Under the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.

God JESUS we've dumbed ourselves down. LOL

Since Syria was listed among those nations in the ban, yet the left and these judicial judges don't see a threat that supports a need for a [pause] and increased vetting, then why are we going through so much trouble to bring Syrian refugees into this country? Apparently, according to the left, there is no threat that exists to bring any sense of urgency to their situation. Let these refugees simply stay where they are, as there is no apparent crisis nor threat due to this recent "clarification" from the left. Why bother?

Do we yet see how liberals can't have it both ways, when it comes to this need for an immigrant / refugee resettlement surge into this country?

Refugees go through more thorough vetting than any immigration population. Denying entry to refugees is a violation of the geneva convention. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

That would imply that Trump fucked up and we all know that's just not impossible. What he should do is make the EO apply only to new visas. It would eliminate most of the problems.

It's not about visas. Congress can pass a law regarding visas if they like. This is about a travel restriction of people who may already have visas. That's why the visa laws don't apply.

There was confusion in the roll-out. I will give you that. They should have waited until Sessions was in place and had his SG in place before issuing this EO. I personally think this was some of Bannon's doings. A lot of these people don't know what the hell they're doing but the EO was constitutionally sound, other presidents have used the exact same statute to do the exact same thing, there's never been a problem with it before.

The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.

The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.

However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.

. Is it Trump's EO that is the problem or is it the left who are still in many positions of government implementing the order incorrectly, and interpreting the order incorrectly ?? Just because Trump became president doesn't mean that the left has lost all government power right ? So is this all a case of the left undermining Trump again or is the EO just badly done ??

His EO is the problem. Hence the latest news is that he's considering drafting a new one, because the first one was so utterly fucked.

"The left undermining"? Huh? Are you fucking retarded?

The vast majority of federal employees are non-partisan. We're AMERICANS, you anti-American piece of shit.

. Your response would quickly implicate you in a court case if you were guilty of something, so what are you guilty of in all of this ?? "Treasonous activities" maybe ? The left are the true anti-Americans, and the last 8 years really brought it to the forefront.

 

[jillian]

That would imply that Trump fucked up and we all know that's just not impossible. What he should do is make the EO apply only to new visas. It would eliminate most of the problems.

It's not about visas. Congress can pass a law regarding visas if they like. This is about a travel restriction of people who may already have visas. That's why the visa laws don't apply.

There was confusion in the roll-out. I will give you that. They should have waited until Sessions was in place and had his SG in place before issuing this EO. I personally think this was some of Bannon's doings. A lot of these people don't know what the hell they're doing but the EO was constitutionally sound, other presidents have used the exact same statute to do the exact same thing, there's never been a problem with it before.

The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.

The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.

However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.

. Is it Trump's EO that is the problem or is it the left who are still in many positions of government implementing the order incorrectly, and interpreting the order incorrectly ?? Just because Trump became president doesn't mean that the left has lost all government power right ? So is this all a case of the left undermining Trump again or is the EO just badly done ??

When he wrote the EO and did not provide for due process to holders of US Visas, the EO was the problem. Immigration agents at airports, had no procedures to follow. The airlines were not notified so they were putting people on planes that were not going to be admitted. Some airlines refused to fly them back because they were not notified of the new policy. I think this is commonly refereed to as a clusterfuck. The plan was ill conciliated and poorly implemented, about what you would expect from leadership that knows nothing about government and even less about politics.The buck stops with the president.

it was also clearly a religion based EO with preferences for christians. the record of statements from the admin only gives clarity to the intent to discriminate based on region.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You don't understand. Holders of a US Visa have been granted the right to enter the US. If that person is denied entry, they are entitled to due process, that is a hearing to plead their case. The same is true if they have been admitted to the US and committed a deportable offense.

No, because Carter negated all visas by EO when he banned travel from Iran.

There is no right whatsoever of foreigners to enter the USA that he President cannot abolish by the signing of an EO and the law specifically gives him that authority.

 

[L.K.Eder]

boo hoo. you haven't earned my compassion after pissing away any residual compassion i have for every human being.

Ah, I see what a turd you are now.

Well, welcome to my ignore list as well.

bye, snowflake. get out of the kitchen.
thread title still a lie.

 

[beagle9]

Under the law, the courts have no jurisdiction to question the President on this issue.

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Clearly, these are rogue judges who have chosen to ignore the law for political reasons.

God JESUS we've dumbed ourselves down. LOL

Since Syria was listed among those nations in the ban, yet the left and these judicial judges don't see a threat that supports a need for a [pause] and increased vetting, then why are we going through so much trouble to bring Syrian refugees into this country? Apparently, according to the left, there is no threat that exists to bring any sense of urgency to their situation. Let these refugees simply stay where they are, as there is no apparent crisis nor threat due to this recent "clarification" from the left. Why bother?

Do we yet see how liberals can't have it both ways, when it comes to this need for an immigrant / refugee resettlement surge into this country?

what is a "judicial judge"?

it is a judge. idiota.

you miss the point.... you cannot ban a religion. you can pretend it's about location, but your orange sociopath repeatedly said he wanted a preference for christians.

oops.

. You sure can ban a religion if the religion is incompatible with your country, it's ideology, values, standards etc. Otherwise if attacked by people, and those people claim they are doing so because their religion tells them to attack you, then you sure can ban the religion that motivates people to become terrorist, and then attack you, and then kill you.

uh, what?

It's liken to a gun, where as you don't ban the gun because someone got killed by it, but you sure would go after the person behind the gun, and then ban the activity in which the person engaged criminally in by identifying it, and then you stop the activity that caused the person to take the gun and kill a person with the gun. Take the KKK for example, where as it had created a character or self-made religious view that blacks were a problem, so the people decided to ban the KKK from espousing their misguided beliefs because they were targeting and killing blacks with it. The radical Islamist or extremist are no different, so the activity or belief is being identified, but how many are involved is the unanswered question that no one truly knows, and after the deaths of Americans, people aren't so willing to just tolerate something that has been killing their family members like it has. Actually it best to go after the religion and not the person if the religion is the cause of the problem. Then you just rehabilitate the people who were using such a thing to kill people with. Maybe not ban the whole religion, but just the parts that causes people to kill with it. Hmmm.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Ummm ... based on what legal interpretation of the case? You see it's customary for justices to show in their decision brief their knowledge, understanding, and interpretive view of legal government documents and how these sections are being used (if properly) in implementing that particular executive order. These judges stayed clear of any such legal interpretation, as there was no Stare Decisis in their 21 page decision presented on this case. I doubt many liberal judges touched on the term in law school, based on their formulated interpretive view on the duty of the court.

Right, liberals know NOTHING of stare decisis. That's why Scalia ignored all prior 2nd amendment rulings in making up an imaginary "home defense" right in the 2nd Amendment?

The EO discriminated on the basis of religion, and invalidated green cards and visas on the basis of religion. That's an arbitrary denial of due process, and an arbitrary violation of equal protection.

I doubt most right-wing judges have heard of those terms.

Nations with highest Muslim Population
- Indonesia 209,120,000
- India 176,200,000
- Pakistan 167,410,000
- Bangladesh 134,430,000
- Nigeria 77,300,000
- Egypt 76,990,000

Now how many of these Muslim populated nations listed among the top 6 are actually found in the ban you claim proves religious discrimination? Do we actually know what religious discrimination is GaryDog? It's hard to actually prove "discrimination" when there are a vast majority of muslims still free to come into the United States. Now what else can I help clarify for you?

It's religious discrimination when you ban refugees from 7 countries, but then HAND PRIORITY FOR CONSIDERATION TO "RELIGIOUS MINORITIES" IN THOSE COUNTRIES, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.


You have the ability to clarify nothing. You can trip over your dick about anything, however.

Gary you really have no clue as to what religious discrimination is. What are the top six Muslim nations in the world? I just listed them. How many of those listed are on the ban? Does that actually mean President Trump wants to ban ALL muslims from entering in the United States? If he were to ban all Muslim nations then you would have a case for religious discrimination, instead we hear .... "Oh it's a hardship to our state, our students, and our revenue. These are just facts Gary, I can't help it if you feel the need to throw a tantrum because you can't present any opposing argumentative facts on the issue.

LMAO, you're very very stupid. He doesn't need to ban "all" Muslims for the ban to violate the constitution on the basis of religious discrimination, you clown.

Sorry, but we already "have a case for religious discrimination", and either Trump will amend his order to drop exemptions for Christians and to exclude visa and green card holders, or SCOTUS will rule against him. That's just the facts, pussy.

Trump may have undermined the legal case for his immigration ban in 2 major ways

"You don't have to ban all muslims to show religious discrimination" ... Yes you absolutely do. That's what religious discrimination means, to not allow someone into a country based SOLELY and STRICTLY on the basis of their religion. I have continuously provided facts of vastly more populated Muslim nations than what's listed on the ban, and obviously no one is being denied entry as an immigrant solely and strictly on the basis of their religious beliefs alone. Obviously there is other conditions in place that is a factor on these seven specific nations over any other Muslim nation. Religious discrimination? You really want to go on with this and make a bigger fool of yourself?


Look at the actual key points the state of Washington brought up in their arguments: "students" who wish to travel to one of these seven nations (which the state hasn't provided proof of any, purely hypothetical in nature), families on visas who frequently travel and fear they might be able to return from those nations to the United States, they even threw in a loss of state revenue to try and bring a bigger case. The state legal defense was providing evidence with the attempt to demonstrate some form of HARDSHIP NOT religious discrimination. You have not provided any facts that is the basis of clear religious discrimination AT ALL. You seriously need to be educated on what religious descrimination is.

 

[beagle9]

That would imply that Trump fucked up and we all know that's just not impossible. What he should do is make the EO apply only to new visas. It would eliminate most of the problems.

It's not about visas. Congress can pass a law regarding visas if they like. This is about a travel restriction of people who may already have visas. That's why the visa laws don't apply.

There was confusion in the roll-out. I will give you that. They should have waited until Sessions was in place and had his SG in place before issuing this EO. I personally think this was some of Bannon's doings. A lot of these people don't know what the hell they're doing but the EO was constitutionally sound, other presidents have used the exact same statute to do the exact same thing, there's never been a problem with it before.

The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.

The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.

However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.

. Is it Trump's EO that is the problem or is it the left who are still in many positions of government implementing the order incorrectly, and interpreting the order incorrectly ?? Just because Trump became president doesn't mean that the left has lost all government power right ? So is this all a case of the left undermining Trump again or is the EO just badly done ??

When he wrote the EO and did not provide for due process to holders of US Visas, the EO was the problem. Immigration agents at airports, had no procedures to follow. The airlines were not notified so they were putting people on planes that were not going to be admitted. Some airlines refused to fly them back because they were not notified of the new policy. I think this is commonly refereed to as a clusterfuck. The plan was ill conciliated and poorly implemented, about what you would expect from leadership that knows nothing about government and even less about politics.The buck stops with the president.

. Sounds like the government wasn't all on the same page during implementation, and that was a major problem with it all I bet. Sounds like government officials were mis-interpreting the thing during implementation, because like Trump said it was not a ban in the way that somehow it got implemented, so the loose ends needed to be tied up. The libs pounced.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Rumors of entire 9th convening to reconsider

 

[Flopper]

You don't understand. Holders of a US Visa have been granted the right to enter the US. If that person is denied entry, they are entitled to due process, that is a hearing to plead their case. The same is true if they have been admitted to the US and committed a deportable offense.

No, because Carter negated all visas by EO when he banned travel from Iran.

There is no right whatsoever of foreigners to enter the USA that he President cannot abolish by the signing of an EO and the law specifically gives him that authority.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States. There is no evidence that these 7 countries are doing so. Carters order, unlike Trump's allowed for application for reconsideration which provided due process for visa holders.

It's apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Flopper]

That would imply that Trump fucked up and we all know that's just not impossible. What he should do is make the EO apply only to new visas. It would eliminate most of the problems.

It's not about visas. Congress can pass a law regarding visas if they like. This is about a travel restriction of people who may already have visas. That's why the visa laws don't apply.

There was confusion in the roll-out. I will give you that. They should have waited until Sessions was in place and had his SG in place before issuing this EO. I personally think this was some of Bannon's doings. A lot of these people don't know what the hell they're doing but the EO was constitutionally sound, other presidents have used the exact same statute to do the exact same thing, there's never been a problem with it before.

The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.

The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.

However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.

. Is it Trump's EO that is the problem or is it the left who are still in many positions of government implementing the order incorrectly, and interpreting the order incorrectly ?? Just because Trump became president doesn't mean that the left has lost all government power right ? So is this all a case of the left undermining Trump again or is the EO just badly done ??

When he wrote the EO and did not provide for due process to holders of US Visas, the EO was the problem. Immigration agents at airports, had no procedures to follow. The airlines were not notified so they were putting people on planes that were not going to be admitted. Some airlines refused to fly them back because they were not notified of the new policy. I think this is commonly refereed to as a clusterfuck. The plan was ill conciliated and poorly implemented, about what you would expect from leadership that knows nothing about government and even less about politics.The buck stops with the president.

. Sounds like the government wasn't all on the same page during implementation, and that was a major problem with it all I bet. Sounds like government officials were mis-interpreting the thing during implementation, because like Trump said it was not a ban in the way that somehow it got implemented, so the loose ends needed to be tied up. The libs pounced.

Yes, the loose ends needed to be tied up, before the effective date of the order. However, he didn't leave enough time or his staff didn't know the steps that needed to be taken.

Due to his lack of experience in government and selection of a staff, that doesn't have any more experience or knowledge than he does, screw ups like this are inevitable. These guys are trying to manage and organization that they don't understand.

 

[beagle9]

It's not about visas. Congress can pass a law regarding visas if they like. This is about a travel restriction of people who may already have visas. That's why the visa laws don't apply.

There was confusion in the roll-out. I will give you that. They should have waited until Sessions was in place and had his SG in place before issuing this EO. I personally think this was some of Bannon's doings. A lot of these people don't know what the hell they're doing but the EO was constitutionally sound, other presidents have used the exact same statute to do the exact same thing, there's never been a problem with it before.

The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.

The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.

However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.

. Is it Trump's EO that is the problem or is it the left who are still in many positions of government implementing the order incorrectly, and interpreting the order incorrectly ?? Just because Trump became president doesn't mean that the left has lost all government power right ? So is this all a case of the left undermining Trump again or is the EO just badly done ??

When he wrote the EO and did not provide for due process to holders of US Visas, the EO was the problem. Immigration agents at airports, had no procedures to follow. The airlines were not notified so they were putting people on planes that were not going to be admitted. Some airlines refused to fly them back because they were not notified of the new policy. I think this is commonly refereed to as a clusterfuck. The plan was ill conciliated and poorly implemented, about what you would expect from leadership that knows nothing about government and even less about politics.The buck stops with the president.

. Sounds like the government wasn't all on the same page during implementation, and that was a major problem with it all I bet. Sounds like government officials were mis-interpreting the thing during implementation, because like Trump said it was not a ban in the way that somehow it got implemented, so the loose ends needed to be tied up. The libs pounced.

Yes, the loose ends needed to be tied up, before the effective date of the order. However, he didn't leave enough time or his staff didn't know the steps that needed to be taken.

Due to his lack of experience in government and selection of a staff, that doesn't have any more experience or knowledge than he does, screw ups like this are inevitable. These guys are trying to manage and organization that they don't understand.

. They don't understand ? Is it written in stone as to how something should be run or can fundemental changes be nessesary now in some of these old institutions or programs ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

There is no mention of Executive Orders or Executive Privilege in COTUS. None at all.

"Executive orders, like other rules issued by the federal government, are subject to judicial review. A significant example of the Supreme Court striking down a president's executive order came about in 1952. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the court held struck down Executive Order 10340, issued by President Harry Truman, which ordered Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize control of a majority of the nation's steel mills in anticipation of a steelworker strike during the Korean War. The court held that President Truman lacked the constitutional or statutory power to seize private property.

"Following Truman's presidency, the Supreme Court did not invalidate any executive orders for several decades. In Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Court reviewed several executive orders issued by President Reagan which nullified holds on Iranian assets and removed claims against Iran from US courts following the resolution of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The court took a deferential approach to their review and allowed President Reagan's executive orders to stand. Judicial deference in cases concerning executive orders has largely continued, although a number of executive orders have come under review in district courts.

"On July 30, 2014, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution that allowed Speaker John Boehner to sue President Barack Obama over an executive order the president issued altering the timing requirements for implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The order delayed implementation of certain aspects of the ACA, notably a mandate on employers who did not provide health care coverage. The suit claimed that President Obama's executive powers did not authorize the changing of such a provision. To date, however, the Supreme Court is yet to hear a challenge to any executive order made by President Obama."
JURIST - Executive Orders

 

[Flopper]

The court did not agree with you. Trump's order violates due process rights established under the Fifth Amendment. The administration has said foreigners have few rights to force their way into the country, however, Due Process is one of them. Legal residents of the United States who were being blocked by the order have a right to due process. Had the EO, given notice of the ban and established a process for US visa holder abroad to request a hearing, the due process requirement would have been satisfied.

The smart thing for Trump to do is to tear up this EO, get some real legal help, and issue one that does not violate constitutional rights, that applies only to new Visas being issued.

However, Trump has decide to fight it out in court. Apparently he's blind to the political and PR backlash that will result from US residents being stranded overseas, people with jobs that can't return, parents separated from their children, college students unable to complete their education, etc... There would certainly be retaliation, possibly the terrorist attacks Trump fears and retaliation by other countries.

. Is it Trump's EO that is the problem or is it the left who are still in many positions of government implementing the order incorrectly, and interpreting the order incorrectly ?? Just because Trump became president doesn't mean that the left has lost all government power right ? So is this all a case of the left undermining Trump again or is the EO just badly done ??

When he wrote the EO and did not provide for due process to holders of US Visas, the EO was the problem. Immigration agents at airports, had no procedures to follow. The airlines were not notified so they were putting people on planes that were not going to be admitted. Some airlines refused to fly them back because they were not notified of the new policy. I think this is commonly refereed to as a clusterfuck. The plan was ill conciliated and poorly implemented, about what you would expect from leadership that knows nothing about government and even less about politics.The buck stops with the president.

. Sounds like the government wasn't all on the same page during implementation, and that was a major problem with it all I bet. Sounds like government officials were mis-interpreting the thing during implementation, because like Trump said it was not a ban in the way that somehow it got implemented, so the loose ends needed to be tied up. The libs pounced.

Yes, the loose ends needed to be tied up, before the effective date of the order. However, he didn't leave enough time or his staff didn't know the steps that needed to be taken.

Due to his lack of experience in government and selection of a staff, that doesn't have any more experience or knowledge than he does, screw ups like this are inevitable. These guys are trying to manage and organization that they don't understand.

. They don't understand ? Is it written in stone as to how something should be run or can fundemental changes be nessesary now in some of these old institutions or programs ?

You can streamline government procedures and regulations but until then, the government is a huge inefficient bureaucracy that is highly regulated. Trump issued an order without taking that into account and the result was a disorganized mess.

 

[Flopper]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

 

[beagle9]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

There is no mention of Executive Orders or Executive Privilege in COTUS. None at all.

"Executive orders, like other rules issued by the federal government, are subject to judicial review. A significant example of the Supreme Court striking down a president's executive order came about in 1952. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the court held struck down Executive Order 10340, issued by President Harry Truman, which ordered Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize control of a majority of the nation's steel mills in anticipation of a steelworker strike during the Korean War. The court held that President Truman lacked the constitutional or statutory power to seize private property.

"Following Truman's presidency, the Supreme Court did not invalidate any executive orders for several decades. In Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Court reviewed several executive orders issued by President Reagan which nullified holds on Iranian assets and removed claims against Iran from US courts following the resolution of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The court took a deferential approach to their review and allowed President Reagan's executive orders to stand. Judicial deference in cases concerning executive orders has largely continued, although a number of executive orders have come under review in district courts.

"On July 30, 2014, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution that allowed Speaker John Boehner to sue President Barack Obama over an executive order the president issued altering the timing requirements for implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The order delayed implementation of certain aspects of the ACA, notably a mandate on employers who did not provide health care coverage. The suit claimed that President Obama's executive powers did not authorize the changing of such a provision. To date, however, the Supreme Court is yet to hear a challenge to any executive order made by President Obama."
JURIST - Executive Orders

. When the EO is written based upon what is allowed in the Constitution, then why would the court need a judicial review other than to confirm that the EO is Constitutional, and that the Constitution gives explicit permission to the president to take actions as per the EO was written?

 

[beagle9]

. Is it Trump's EO that is the problem or is it the left who are still in many positions of government implementing the order incorrectly, and interpreting the order incorrectly ?? Just because Trump became president doesn't mean that the left has lost all government power right ? So is this all a case of the left undermining Trump again or is the EO just badly done ??

When he wrote the EO and did not provide for due process to holders of US Visas, the EO was the problem. Immigration agents at airports, had no procedures to follow. The airlines were not notified so they were putting people on planes that were not going to be admitted. Some airlines refused to fly them back because they were not notified of the new policy. I think this is commonly refereed to as a clusterfuck. The plan was ill conciliated and poorly implemented, about what you would expect from leadership that knows nothing about government and even less about politics.The buck stops with the president.

. Sounds like the government wasn't all on the same page during implementation, and that was a major problem with it all I bet. Sounds like government officials were mis-interpreting the thing during implementation, because like Trump said it was not a ban in the way that somehow it got implemented, so the loose ends needed to be tied up. The libs pounced.

Yes, the loose ends needed to be tied up, before the effective date of the order. However, he didn't leave enough time or his staff didn't know the steps that needed to be taken.

Due to his lack of experience in government and selection of a staff, that doesn't have any more experience or knowledge than he does, screw ups like this are inevitable. These guys are trying to manage and organization that they don't understand.

. They don't understand ? Is it written in stone as to how something should be run or can fundemental changes be nessesary now in some of these old institutions or programs ?

You can streamline government procedures and regulations but until then, the government is a huge inefficient bureaucracy that is highly regulated. Trump issued an order without taking that into account and the result was a disorganized mess.

. Sounds to me like it has been a disorganized mess, and Trump expected better but got burned trying to get it to work.