Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I suppose this is an example of what our Founders meant by their creation of :
3 EQUAL branches of government,
Judicial, Congress, and the President?
No one, is greater or more powerful than the other?
Reminds me of Carol King's song, Sweet Seasons,
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose
And most times you choose between the two
He/She/ they've given a 'stay', they haven't legislated from the bench....they've given a reprieve until the issue can be remediated....which was promised by both the House through a Ryan promise, and the Senate, through McConnell that the issue would be brought to the floor.I suppose this is an example of what our Founders meant by their creation of :
3 EQUAL branches of government,
Judicial, Congress, and the President?
No one, is greater or more powerful than the other?
Reminds me of Carol King's song, Sweet Seasons,
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose
And most times you choose between the two
The Founding Fathers did include what the duties of the three branches are.
The Constitution does not give the Judicial Branch the authority to legislate from the bench.
Nor does it give the President the authority to write legislation.
DACA is not law ... The Judicial Branch should concern itself with existing law.
.
He/She/ they've given a 'stay', they haven't legislated from the bench....they've given a reprieve until the issue can be remediated....which was promised by both the House through a Ryan promise, and the Senate, through McConnell that the issue would be brought to the floor.
I understand that the other court case ruled that no NEW Daca recipients could be added or made from 2 to 3 years, but nothing more.??He/She/ they've given a 'stay', they haven't legislated from the bench....they've given a reprieve until the issue can be remediated....which was promised by both the House through a Ryan promise, and the Senate, through McConnell that the issue would be brought to the floor.
DACA isn't law ... And the Judicial Branch is in charge of ruling in regards to existing law.
Congress doesn't have to do anything about DACA ... Because DACA wasn't written by Congress and isn't law ...
.
From my understanding, the Judge ruled that the arbitrary March 6 cut off, was not in effect because the congress was in the process of negotiating with the President on legislating a solution.I suppose this is an example of what our Founders meant by their creation of :
3 EQUAL branches of government,
Judicial, Congress, and the President?
No one, is greater or more powerful than the other?
Reminds me of Carol King's song, Sweet Seasons,
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose
And most times you choose between the two
This is not how "separation of powers" was intended to work. Any executive order from any president can cancel an existing executive order of another president. Even the asshole Obama who wrote the original DACA executive order publicly admitted that it was illegal for him to write in the first place. Hell, it wasn't even an executive order, it was a fucking memo.
Activist hack judges who uphold illegal memos like that one should be charged with obstruction when they purposely make unconstitutional “judgements” like this, because it definitely is judicial over-reach. The Judicial branch of the United States government has no authority to tell the Executive branch that he has to extend a previous President's memos as if they were laws.
The cut off date would make them eligible to be deported and it would or could make them lose their jobs, etc....when a legislative solution was just around the corner...Trump's plan was to keep 1.8 million Dreamers, which he had announced......
the Judge did the only thing the Judge could do....under the circumstances.
I understand that the other court case ruled that no NEW Daca recipients could be added or made from 2 to 3 years, but nothing more.??
True, it isn't a standing law, and it is no way to treat people affected by it with so much uncertainty to their lives and future, which all relies on the political posturing of the moment...I understand that the other court case ruled that no NEW Daca recipients could be added or made from 2 to 3 years, but nothing more.??
Well ... I think it is all political pandering ... On the part of Congress, the executive branch and the judiciary.
The Constitution is not as vague as people would like to make it out.
I have my opinions about what I would like in regards to DACA recipients ...
But more importantly ... If there needs to be a law ... Follow the process necessary.
If Presidents go back and forth with Executive Orders ... It still isn't law.
.
True, it isn't a standing law, and it is no way to treat people affected by it with so much uncertainty to their lives and future, which all relies on the political posturing of the moment...
If they can stay then legislate it.
If they can not stay, then legislate it.
This LIMBO crud, is inhumane imo..coming from my caring female perspective.
Except, that is not the will of the people, thus the controversy...from the last i saw, the polls say:True, it isn't a standing law, and it is no way to treat people affected by it with so much uncertainty to their lives and future, which all relies on the political posturing of the moment...
If they can stay then legislate it.
If they can not stay, then legislate it.
This LIMBO crud, is inhumane imo..coming from my caring female perspective.
Congress didn't create the uncertainty ... Those who chose to circumvent the law made that decision.
There is no need to legislate what is already law ... The "limbo" is created by those who desire to ignore the law.
The judge playing part in that ... Is attempting to legislate (create law that doesn't exist) from the bench ...
Opinion is not law ... Desires are not law.
.
Except, that is not the will of the people, thus the controversy...from the last i saw, the polls say:
Around 70 to 80% of Americans would like to see legislation, allowing Dreamers to stay...and even if it is only 60%, it is still the majority of Americans want them to allow them to stay....
and our representatives, are SUPPOSE to represent the majority of us..no matter the side..there may be hurdles, like cloture votes, but in the end, they are our representatives and they should represent the majority....
And yes I know they have not been very successful at doing that over the decades.....
I suppose this is an example of what our Founders meant by their creation of :
3 EQUAL branches of government,
Judicial, Congress, and the President?
No one, is greater or more powerful than the other?
Reminds me of Carol King's song, Sweet Seasons,
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose
And most times you choose between the two
3 equal BUT separate, (independent) branches of government.I suppose this is an example of what our Founders meant by their creation of :
3 EQUAL branches of government,
Judicial, Congress, and the President?
No one, is greater or more powerful than the other?
Reminds me of Carol King's song, Sweet Seasons,
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose
And most times you choose between the two
Be careful how you throw around these words like "equal". "Independent" would be a better description of the way they were set up but more importantly was the principle that any two would be able to check the other.
"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. " Federalist 51
We have a system that had been abused as we have seen a "gradual concentration of powers" by the judiciary. The only one unelected branch. The primary check is that the President and the Senate together appoint the judges and I dont mind waiting on that to make changes. it is intentionally a slow process. We will get rid of the guys like this Garaufis over the next seven years.
But the immediate problem is the tyranny of a branch that thinks it cant be questioned. The Constitution says all laws are passed by Congress. Not the President and not the judiciary. This judge has not only ignored the law of the land, imposing his own feelings that it is a "heartless" law, but he has ordered the president to not do his duty in enforcing the law.
We could ignore the judge if the other branche agree to do so thus"checking" him as intended. As President Trump has said it is unconstitutional for him to NOT enforce laws passed by the legislature. Congress should be on board with this because of what use are they if their laws are ignored? And the Judge should be impeached and removed on the simple charge of legislating his own beliefs rather than the law. He wasnt put there to make laws or decide which are heartless. He was made a judge to apply the law.
President Trump will win this on appeal as he always does. But in the meantime that judge has got to go.
