Trump bid to reinstate travel ban fails following late night appeals court ruling

a reply to: DJW001

a bit hyperbolic.

EO's are operational memorandums, not law. Since his job is to execute the law, he has some leeway in interpretation when determining how the execution will take place. If folks don't like his interpretation, they challenge it through the courts. That is how it works....its how it was designed.

If Trump can be impeached for doing his job and allowing the system to do its job, then I presume we can do the same to politicans we don't like in Congress? Because lets face it: it all boils down to people who don't like HIM (not his politics or policies, but him personally) are screaming.

It looked dumb when it was done to Obama. It looks dumb now. I hope our nation gets over it some time soon.

a reply to: DJW001

It's already been decided by Scotus in case you missed that part.

During Obamas term 17 states sued him over his EO on immigration. The standing they used was the EO actually violated federal law. In this case Trumps EO is based on the law Congress passed in 2015.

Trumps EO is a political question and not a legal one. Thats why the states / business have no standing to bring a challenge and why the federal courts have no jurisdiction.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

It's already been decided by Scotus in case you missed that part.

You must be psychic. It hasn't even arrived at the Supreme Court yet.

a reply to: DJW001

No. But when it does, the precedence was already set. Because it was decided in a previous case.

While they can overturn precedence....it would be fairly unprecedented. Ironic,

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

It's already been decided by Scotus in case you missed that part.

You must be psychic. It hasn't even arrived at the Supreme Court yet.

You must not have read my posts in this thread. The issue of immigration / refugee actions by the President are nonjusticiable because it deals with a specific authority granted by the Constitution to Congress and to the President (immigration is congress refugee is president). Congress delegated their authority on immigration to the President in this case with the 2015 law they passed.

Since there is no conflict between the 2 branches, because the EO is based on existing law, the challenge to the EO is a political question and not a legal one. The Supreme Court ruling im referring to (actually there are a bunch going all the way back to Marbury vs. Madison) says a political question and not a legal one are not to be heard by the courts.

A political question issue is to be resolved at the ballot box. Scotus viewed the judicial branch getting involved in another branches actions when those actions are specifically spelled out in the Constitution and no conflict exists as an overreach.

The only jurisdiction the federal courts have when it comes to immigration / refugee issues is if they claim a violation of an affected persons constitutional rights. That means they must be inside the US and be directly affected.

Absent the constitutional rights violation claim they have no authority in the other area in question.

That also means States have no standing to challenge the EO either. There is no constitutional guarantee that a state will have a solid economy or solid job market. There is no constitutional guarantee that a state will have enough faculty or students for their educational systems. There is no constitutional guarantee that the Federal government must take an action that directly or indirectly benefits a state. There is no constitutional guarantee the federal governments foreign policy / immigration policy / refugee policy must be crafted to provide skilled foreign labor suitable by businesses for employment nor is their a guarantee the federal government cant take an action that would result in a state or business losing money because of those policies.

It is a political question and not a legal one.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if it will uphold the precedent. They could even decide the 2015 law is unconstitutional. With the Supreme Court having an even number of people at the moment....

a reply to: DJW001

The constitutionality of the law is not in question. Neither is the constitutional authority granted to the executive and legislative with regards to immigration and refugees. If anything the constitutionality of the judges actions can be challenged.

The precedent was set and will be used here.

a reply to: gortex

And the next Trump twitter tirade begins in 3...2...1...

However states have no say in federal politics so it's either it's put up or shut up. The concern is that those who would
vote for a Smith & Wesson for Prez starts banging on about secession and that is what worries me.

China was once an isalationalist nation but now that it is more globalised it has prospered and Now the Trump admin want's to do a reverse China (not to mention the US owes China over a Trillion Dollars) so where is the money to come from? overseas just like it has been for a hundred years and then some.

Shoot your guns and stop dem mooslims all you want; it want stop the fact that most nations will take in muslim doctors or specialists and when your child needs help i'd rather be a beggar than a chooser.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Or are you unable to make an argument and instead have to rely on people who dont know what they are talking about?

Here - maybe this will help you understand how our system works:



Not everyone likes it - but, checks and balances aren't for everyone

Whether you realize it or not - this whole thing was always going to end up before the Supreme Court

Let's hear what the highest court in the land says about the legality and constitutionality of Dear Leader's EO

a reply to: Xcathdra

That is the longest ramble of false and wrong claims ...I am will let reality debunk you in the next 30 days of you rulings.

BUT YES....the president is unnecessary to law and the constitution...and his EO runs afoul of both.

NO ...It is not just immigrants in transit who have standing, States, private companies and other entities and individuals are harmed by the unconstitutional order..

You should read the amicus brief...

And by the way.... Congress has said they will NOT defend the law...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Seems pointless to argue any of this. From the anti-Trump crowd, they really don't care about the legal implications of this standing issue. They just want him stopped, even if this very thing later comes back to haunt them.

This is how nations die....from within.

a reply to: Indigo5

So can States now sue the feds to reinstate its commitment to TPP...or seek to reject or impose any trade or treaty commitment?

How about suing because the feds imposed sanctions upon some country who businesses employ people within the state or who provide some other substantial commercial interest within the state?

This could go on and on...

What you are really saying is you would like a return to a confederacy. I think we already tried that once.

a reply to: loam

From the anti-Trump crowd, they really don't care about the legal implications of this standing issue. They just want him stopped, even if this very thing later comes back to haunt them.

The anti-Trump crowd understands the threat from terrorism but disagrees with the way Trump has decided to handle it. It goes beyond that though - this EO smacks of something else

I think it's interesting that so many people believe that this is something that can't wait. Very interesting

It deserves to be argued - by both sides. Prove your case - then we can proceed

This is how nations die....from within.

You could look at that so many different ways

a reply to: Phoenix

Nuff said when even Google isn't hiding result.

Why should they hide it?

CREW

At CREW, we believe that government, subject to appropriate checks and balances, can and often does have a positive impact on the lives of Americans. It has become abundantly clear, though, that the corrupting influences of money from powerful interests and of unchecked conflicts of interest create major barriers to even the most well-intentioned politicians and officials working effectively for the common good. If we work together to reduce that negative influence, we can create a government that is responsive, open, and effective.

Being progressive is not the same thing as being un-American. Or, is this how it is now?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

That's why we have elections.

There isn't a single thing Trump is doing that couldn't be stopped by Congress.

Moreover, I think you misunderstand my point about this issue. The terrorism concern is really not the problem. By giving the State standing on this issue, they have opened Pandora's box. Mark my words on this one. Today, you see it as the system working. But just wait for the day soon when the consequences of this judicial view strike against you and the various States bring a flood of litigation that effectively hobbles our federalized system on all kinds of issues.

Ironically, history may well write that it was the left that killed federalism in favor of states rights.

Up is the new down...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Miracula2

Trump can now sleep with a clear conscience, even if something happens like a terrorist attack.

I doubt his conscience has ever troubled him. But yea, if there is an attack he can blame it on the judge. Even if it comes from, say, a Saudi.

I wasn't saying his conscience was ever a problem. He took action on this matter as soon as he took office.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Phoenix


Being progressive is not the same thing as being un-American

The only problem is that extremists don't respect progressiveness. Boston bombers don't care.

Iran will respect progressiveness by allowing those wrestlers a visa, but extremists don't care.

Only moderates care, which is why the travel ban against Iran was wrong.

a reply to: loam

This is not the first time a state has challenged the federal government in court. Calm down.

a reply to: loam


Again...not interested in BS..


TPP? Foreign trade? State vs. Fed?


Nope...This is multiple parties and entities V. Donald J. Trump, acting as President


Your example is wildly not relevant. In virtually EVERY way that matters.

uh..Yes..The President has the right to negotiate trade, but congress must consent and it can't be illegal and unconstitutional.

The President can't say Apple can export products..but DELL CANT!...The President can't say we will import flour from only from Christians, not Jews!

This EO is getting so hammered...The GOP Dominated CONGRESS has refused to defend it. Trumps own appointee at DHS Refused to enforce it!

You know you have gone off the rails with an EO when..

a reply to: DJW001

No. It's not. And it has been well settled Constitutional law for most of our history, when that can happen and when it cannot.

This ruling is nothing short of historic if allowed to stand.