So as expected Trump has stated he intends to write another Travel ban order potentially in direct conflict with the recent stay order by the judiciary ( appeals court ) Extreme example: What happens if he simply "photocopies" ( issues with out any changes) the travel ban order he has already made and simply gives it a new number? How do the Judiciary deal with such?
The law on immigration and related matters favors the president. Legal precedents traditionally have accorded the chief executive complete and nearly unchecked power to deny foreigners permission to enter the United States. And then, We have attempts to legislate from the bench.
No, it doesn't. His Executive Order violates: 1) The Fourteenth Amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means you can't deny people refuge unless the law applies to everyone equally. 2) The First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This EO targets Islamic countries, and Trump made it very clear during his campaign that he would act to ban Muslims from entering the United States. (Note that it doesn't matter if he claims now that it doesn't target Muslims specifically; the courts have made it clear that trying to disguise such actions is not an adequate defense.) 3) The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. Individuals seeking entrance into the United States cannot be "discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa" because of their "race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence". That's why he is backing down; his lawyers have told him he will lose. In this case we have the bench, the legislature and the Constitution saying one thing, and Trump saying another. I know who I will choose to go with.
utter nonsense. The bench only vets the legislation and provides an excellent service to the POTUS so that he is not "inadvertently" in breach of the nations laws and constitution. The bench is simply doing it's job in supporting the POTUS and doing it rather well.... "Team USA" either get with plan or leave...
Of course he is trying to break the law He wants to please you and get thrown out before your 30 day deadline is up Good luck with that 5 days for me 23 for you You still going with your 30 days?
Oh I am not so sure any more.... he seems to be doing a really good job... not sure what his job is actually but what ever he is doing he seems to be fine... (sarc) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Looks real simple to me. Don't know what weasel logic those judges were using.
Arrh and here is little ol' me thinking you had come over to the DARK SIDE Is there no love in your heart even on Valentine's Day? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We might get to find out. But the idea is that the judiciary might simply strike the order, or it might strike the order and issue a finding of contempt. • In my corner, the other Washington―the state―our Supreme Court actually issued a contempt order against the entire freaking legislature, and nobody yet has figured out just how to enforce it. And that's the big question. But the Trump administration aren't legislators; the frontline agents acting to enforce the illegal orders will risk exposure under the law. So, hey, remember that one acting Attorney General who didn't want to cooperate with the Trump administration? Well, the Attorney General oversees the U.S. Marshal's office, who in turn have duties including delivering and enforcing court orders: The courts are often the last resort and hope for people whose lack of resources and power puts them at a dangerous disadvantage when majority factions and even governments want to remove property, rights, and hope. Reports that some agents of Customs and Border Patrol would not obey temporary restraining orders issued by multiple federal judges show how even legal actions by a fundamental branch of government can be swept aside. New developments from the last few days suggest that the problem went even deeper. A group of lawyers volunteering their time to help people at Los Angeles International Airport affected by Trump's immigration orders claim the local U.S. Marshal's office had failed to serve relevant court orders to Customs and Border Patrol officers at Los Angeles International Airport. Statements I've received from the Marshal's Service and the Department of Justice do not deny the charges. (Sherman↱) One of the perpetual questions in all of this is who follows orders, as such, and who makes a constitutional stand. Legislators have weird protections, and it's true law enforcement officers do, as well. But refusing the courts is a dangerous proposition. ____________________ Notes: Sherman, Erik. "U.S. Marshals Accused Of Not Serving Court Orders About Immigration Ban". Forbes. 1 February 2017. Forbes.com. 13 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2l9qqBT
My assumption is that our judiciary has forgotten how to interpret the law. I'm not a legal genius, but I can read. It took me less than five minutes to find the law. Let me go through it with you... 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (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.[/QUOTE] Spank me if I'm wrong, but you would need be a magician to think your way around something as straight forward as the above, or maybe just retarded.
My guess is that it's jurisdiction is limited somehow. Thus irrelevant to the case at hand. In other words quoting law out with out legal context is not going to achieve much.Also the law may have been amended which has not been indicated in your quote... I dunno... One thing you can be pretty certain about the appeal Judges are not stupid and they had plenty of time prior to the case being heard to think about the case. Looking at their judgement text I don;t think there was any reference to the Code you are quoting...
Are they retarded? It's an honest question? I see no other explanation. 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (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.
So they ignored the law? They have no business sitting on the bench, right? Here's the link to my source... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (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.
Searching for some integrity but not finding any... https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (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.
I call bullsh*t. The 1182 u cite has a huge list of exclusions etc. And where is the part u quote? Be specific May be provide a print screen.
No they aren't retarded, but people who read a few sections of legal code and think they can interpret the law might be. Just because you have a statue which says something, it doesn't follow the law is as that particular statue describes. For example, Congress could pass a law which restores slavery, and law would be recorded on the books. But it wouldn't be recognized as law, because the US Constitution has precedence over any law passed by Congress. US law is a complicated web of many intertwined laws and judicial rulings with varying levels of precedence. US law isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. That is one reason why I didn't go to law school. That's why lawyers have all those books and legal assistants. In business school I learned enough law to know that just because you have a statue which says one thing, it doesn't mean that's how the law is practiced. The law is much more complicated than you realize. It's logical; it makes sense. But you have to understand the entirety of the law in order to make sense of it. You might want to read up on the following law: 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Bowser is looking at one piece of legal code and is unaware of all the other laws that are involved here. If Bowser had more subject matter knowledge, he would be guilty of cherry picking. But he doesn't. He is just blundering around the legal code and thinks he understands it. The law is best left to lawyers.