White house vows emergency stay of judicial order thwarting Presidents immigration order

[reconmark]

I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.

And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.

Sorry, but being partisan jackwads like you doesn't prove you or they are correct. It just proves that you're all partisan jackwads, and we already knew that.


Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

Here you go....

Clear Violation
5.5k
1.5k
191
All the many ways Trump’s Muslim ban goes against the Constitution.

1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.

2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.

3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*

4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.

They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....and the President has vast powers over immigration policy....as obama showed when he banned Iraqis for 6 months.....and created the list of 7 countries with terrorism problems....

They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....

Actually stupid ass I'm not surprised that you continue to make an ass of yourself...
Here, cocksuck these facts:

Non-Citizens and the Constitution
As immigration attorneys, we are careful to explain to our clients their rights and obligations under U.S. immigration law. We tell our non-citizen clients all the time that only U.S citizens are guaranteed entry into the U.S. However, we also stress that even non-citizens have rights under the Constitution. The Executive Order, whether on purpose or not, severely limits, in our opinion, Constitutional protections for non-citizens.

Briefly, even non-citizens have the following guarantees under the U.S Constitution:

1. Equal protection of the laws
2. Political freedoms of speech and association,
3. Due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake.

Unless the Constitution expressly sets apart its protections to U.S. citizens, it protects non-citizens too.

To be sure, there are important distinctions. For example, green card holders cannot vote like citizens despite being able to live and work freely in the U.S.

Nevertheless, when the Constitution says “all persons” or “all people,” the Supreme Court has held that it means what it says. As far back as in 1886, in the Supreme Court held that “the guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.” (Yick Wo v. Hopkins) Not just members of a certain religion, not just members of a certain race, and not just individuals born in the U.S. All persons. All people.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Athanasius68, post: 1650319

President Trump has said he wishes to rebuild the American military and increase spending on it---this at a time when the USA spends more than several countries combined.

Comparing our spending to that of others has no bearing on the matter. The legislative branch authorizes all spending. Trump can't spend jack shit unless Congress authorizes him to do so. Balance of powers knucklehead.

No judge would over rule a Congressionally passed spending bill. Never.

Your arguments go from dumb to dumber exponentially.

My god dude, I'm trying to help you?

Admit you know nothing and try to learn something.

 

[Athanasius68]

None of the countries from which the TT hijackers came from is on the list.

Some of you don't understand how the judiciary works. It has final say on what is constitutional: not you, not the President, not the commissioner of baseball. OK?

The argument that none of the 911 hijackers came from the seven countries in the EO is a political argument, not a legal argument.

It is not true that the judiciary has the final say as to what is constitutional or not. All three branches have authority under the Constitution which does not require the approval of another branch to exercise.
So who has authority in national security? Its the president, not the courts.

Only SCOTUS has 'original jurisdication' on matters constitutional. Read Article III. SCOTUS can dump the president's actions if it opines he acted unconstitutionally.

Aye-- but that still doesn't answer the question. Under the Constitution, all three have powers and authority to act WITHOUT the approval of another. It's what checks and balances are all about.
What does the court know about national security? What is its authority over that of the president?

The other guy here cited part of the ruling. The judge said it was wrong to use 911 as an argument. Ok. And...? What does that have to do with whether Trump has the authority to make that decision? Why does the judge's opinion of the 911 justification give him authority to overrule the president?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress loves the military, as much or more than Trump and most of the citizens. Fact.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.

And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.

Sorry, but being partisan jackwads like you doesn't prove you or they are correct. It just proves that you're all partisan jackwads, and we already knew that.


Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.

Here you go....

Clear Violation
5.5k
1.5k
191
All the many ways Trump’s Muslim ban goes against the Constitution.

1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.

2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.

3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*

4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.

They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....and the President has vast powers over immigration policy....as obama showed when he banned Iraqis for 6 months.....and created the list of 7 countries with terrorism problems....

They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....

Actually stupid ass I'm not surprised that you continue to make an ass of yourself...
Here, cocksuck these facts:

Non-Citizens and the Constitution
As immigration attorneys, we are careful to explain to our clients their rights and obligations under U.S. immigration law. We tell our non-citizen clients all the time that only U.S citizens are guaranteed entry into the U.S. However, we also stress that even non-citizens have rights under the Constitution. The Executive Order, whether on purpose or not, severely limits, in our opinion, Constitutional protections for non-citizens.

Briefly, even non-citizens have the following guarantees under the U.S Constitution:

1. Equal protection of the laws
2. Political freedoms of speech and association,
3. Due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake.

Unless the Constitution expressly sets apart its protections to U.S. citizens, it protects non-citizens too.

To be sure, there are important distinctions. For example, green card holders cannot vote like citizens despite being able to live and work freely in the U.S.

Nevertheless, when the Constitution says “all persons” or “all people,” the Supreme Court has held that it means what it says. As far back as in 1886, in the Supreme Court held that “the guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.” (Yick Wo v. Hopkins) Not just members of a certain religion, not just members of a certain race, and not just individuals born in the U.S. All persons. All people.

In addition to that, everyone is presumed to be an innocent citizen UNTIL the government has proved they are not, in a court of law.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Athanasius68, post: 16503199,

It's difficult to see how the answer could be yes. Yet, this is what we are being asked to swallow with the EO rejection--that a judge can make a national security determination.

The judge did not make a national security determination. He made a determination that residents and businesses in Washington State were harmed by an unconstitutional executive order.

He heard both sides and the judge explained the complaintants made their case on harm and unconstitutionallity, while Trump's legal team failed to demonstrate a danger existed if vetted Visa holders were to continue their planned journey.

Trump should strengthen the vetting process if he thinks that is necessary instead of the hastily written antiMuslim publicity stunt he pulled off his first week in office to please his deplorable's .

No one would have a problem with that .

 

[Athanasius68]

Athanasius68, post: 1650319

President Trump has said he wishes to rebuild the American military and increase spending on it---this at a time when the USA spends more than several countries combined.

Comparing our spending to that of others has no bearing on the matter. The legislative branch authorizes all spending. Trump can't spend jack shit unless Congress authorizes him to do so. Balance of powers knucklehead.

No judge would over rule a Congressionally passed spending bill. Never.

Your arguments go from dumb to dumber exponentially.

My god dude, I'm trying to help you?

Admit you know nothing and try to learn something.

Yeah, I know. The Constitution gives that power to Congress and thus places a limit on the president of that authority.
The Constitution also vests ALL executive authority in the hands of the president. Not some of it, not all authority pending approval by Congress or the courts (excepting those powers specifically delegates to Congress with respects to executive authority (such as the aforementioned appropriations)), ALL OF IT.
The State Dept. is an executive department. Where is the authority for the courts to rule how the president exercises that power?

 

[Athanasius68]

Athanasius68, post: 16503199,

It's difficult to see how the answer could be yes. Yet, this is what we are being asked to swallow with the EO rejection--that a judge can make a national security determination.

The judge did not make a national security determination. He made a determination that residents and businesses in Washington State were harmed by an unconstitutional executive order.

He heard both sides and the judge explained the complaintants made their case on harm and unconstitutionallity, while Trump's legal team failed to demonstrate a danger existed if vetted Visa holders were to continue their planned journey.

Trump should strengthen the vetting process if he thinks that is necessary instead of the hastily written antiMuslim publicity stunt he pulled off his first week in office to please his deplorable's .

No one would have a problem with that .

Yes-- and the complaint about present visa holders actually in transit and green card holders in general was valid. Trump should have given everyone a few days notice.
But he also announced by the end of that weekend that traveling visa holders, at that time, would be let through.
So the issue was moot. What the judge did is deny that the president has the authority to change visa standards for citizens of those 7 countries, in part because as you pointed, none of their citizens were involved in 911.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yeah, I know. The Constitution gives that power to Congress and thus places a limit on the president of that authority.

No you could not have known that a President can't increase spending for the military on his own when you posted your comment.

Trump's executive order was written in secret. No input or review from Congressional leadership on the matter.

They probably would have told him it was fucked up in the first place and avoided the embarrassment that soon followed.

Trump is Buffoon, the sooner you learn that the better off and safer we will all be.

 

[Athanasius68]

[QUOTE="NotfooledbyW, post:[/QUOTE]
Trump should strengthen the vetting process if he thinks that is necessary instead of the hastily written antiMuslim publicity stunt he pulled off his first week in office to please his deplorable's .

No one would have a problem with that .[/QUOTE]

It was a 90 day ban to review the vetting process. It wasn't permanent.

But I do indeed think lots of people would have had issues with any sort of change. Look at the other post a few minutes by that other objecting to the EO-- All people are innocent until proven guilty. And it's true that not all Yeminis, and Libyans coming to the USA plan on blowing things up. Maybe none of them. But would that fellow really have accepted a situation where it was still tougher to come to the USA from Somalia than Canada?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Athanasius68, post: 1650363

But he also announced by the end of that weekend that traveling visa holders, at that time, would be let through.
So the issue was moot.

Dope.

DHS announced that Green Card holders could get through. The problem was the 100,000 approved visa holders that were harmed by an unconstitutional EO that could not prove these people were a danger of allowed entry to the US.

Some of those went through a year long vetting problem and were vetted.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yeah, I know. The Constitution gives that power to Congress and thus places a limit on the president of that authority.

No you could not have known that a President can't increase spending for the military on his own when you posted your comment.

Trump's executive order was written in secret. No input or review from Congressional leadership on the matter.

They probably would have told him it was fucked up in the first place and avoided the embarrassment that soon followed.

Trump is Buffoon, the sooner you learn that the better off and safer we will all be.

It's called commenting that each branch has authority independent of each other. Just because Trump wishes to increase defense spending, doesn't give him the authority to do it.
And just because a judge doesn't like a particular EO, doesn't give him the authority to overrule it.

Maybe Trump should have brought in Congress, maybe delayed the implementation of the EO for a few days. But bungling his executive authority doesn't give a judge authority to overturn it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It was a 90 day ban to review the vetting process. It wasn't permanent.

All people are innocent until proven guilty.

That only applies to approved VISA holders.

Nationals of every other country of the world have no right to come or visit or get medical treatment or be educated here.

 

[Athanasius68]

Athanasius68, post: 1650363

But he also announced by the end of that weekend that traveling visa holders, at that time, would be let through.
So the issue was moot.

Dope.

DHS announced that Green Card holders could get through. The problem was the 100,000 approved visa holders that were harmed by an unconstitutional EO that could not prove these people were a danger of allowed entry to the US.

Some of those went through a year long vetting problem and were vetted.

DHS is a branch of the executive department. It has no power independent of the president. A DHS decision IS, constitutionally, a presidential decision.
And you are right-- maybe none of these visa holders were a threat to the USA. Legally, it doesn't matter. The president has the authority, and the knowledge, to make that determination.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But bungling his executive authority doesn't give a judge authority to overturn it.

Mike Pence tells you very specifically that all federal judges have the authority. I posted it.

I guess want to remain living in Trumpdumbland. And under a dictatorship to boot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The president has the authority, and the knowledge, to make that determination.

But Federal judges have the last word on whether it is constitutional or not. Or if it causes undo harm to American citizens.

Trump lost in court twice now. Quit believing false things. It's dangerous.

 

[Athanasius68]

It was a 90 day ban to review the vetting process. It wasn't permanent.

All people are innocent until proven guilty.

That only applies to approved VISA holders.

Nationals of every other country of the world have no right to come or visit or get medical treatment or be educated here.

Yes-- and the president, as per his oath of upholding the laws of the USA, did just that.
Yet this Washington judge ruled the president CANT do that.
So if not president, then who can?

 

[Athanasius68]

But bungling his executive authority doesn't give a judge authority to overturn it.

Mike Pence tells you very specifically that all federal judges have the authority. I posted it.

I guess want to remain living in Trumpdumbland. And under a dictatorship to boot.

Pence said that somebody can go to a judge and the judge can respond to that petitioner. Pence reiterated that the president, and the president alone, has the authority to act on that issue.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But would that fellow really have accepted a situation where it was still tougher to come to the USA from Somalia than Canada?

What's to keep that Somali terrorist from getting a visa to Canada and then sneaking across the border to kill Anericans.

Trump should be worried about such things instead of phony waste of time Muslim bans that harm cooperation between countries like ours and Mexico and Canada where all immigrants are welcome.

 

[WillowTree]

Horseshit. The SCOTUS ruled that the American taxpayer had to give every single illegal alien an education. And, medical care. So do not give us that horse shit that only congress passes laws on spending! The American taxpayer is fucked!