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

[Boss]

How would you know?

Because I've been reading and studying the Constitution since I was 12 years old. I'm a Constitutionalist... it's what I AM. The yellow crud under my big toenail has more Constitutional knowledge than your entire brain.

Where? Specifically where can he write executive orders that do not pass constitutional muster by the courts?

What the hell do you mean by "constitutional muster" here? The President is given Executive Power by Article II Sec. 1 Clause 1 and Sec. 2 Clause 1. The only limitations on his power as Commander in Chief is that he cannot declare war or enact treaties. The court is given NO power to override his executive authority just as he is given NO power to override the court's judicial authority... it's called "separation of powers" and it's outlined in specific detail.

The courts have absolutely no authority in the Constitution to sit there and scrutinize his execution of executive authority. That's just NOT the function of the court. Congress can pass laws to restrict the breadth of presidential authority in certain cases but that isn't what you are claiming at all. You somehow think the courts are a supreme branch of government, and they're simply not. In fact, the courts get their authority from Congress!

Those three oppose a Muslim ban.

I don't know why you keep claiming there was a Muslim ban. There wasn't... that's a LIE! You are merely using supposition to presume things that weren't declared. I'm sorry you think Trump tried to ban Muslims. I hope you get help for your mental problem. The man didn't do what you're accusing him of.

BUT... That said, I think Trump CAN restrict Muslims from travelling here if he "deems it appropriate" because the statutory law he is using doesn't restrict him in any way. He went out of his way to NOT do what you're whining about and you just make up a LIE and whine anyway!

 

[danielpalos]

If vetting for those seven countries is such a disaster how's come...

Since 2001, there have been 71 terrorists from those countries arrested, tried and convicted in the United States. The worst terrorist attack in US history took 19 terrorists.

How many terrorists have come from countries that are not on that list, but have have business ties to our current president?

 

[danielpalos]

Boss, post: 16539351

This "stay" is nothing more than partisan political grandstanding to delay the inevitable and it comes at a serious potential risk to national security, and that should alarm everyone. If some jerkwater liberal judge can stop an EO put in place for national security, we are sitting ducks.

That is a lie. Past administrations have provided the courts with classified information on national security matters in the past. This judge asked for information about the threat or risk and Trump's counsel could not present any.

The court must assume that none exist and question the true motives of Trump's Muslim hating Administration.

Trump is not a dictator. He is not above the law. He cannot lie about threats and make up discriminatory laws to deal with them.

The courts should have stopped George Bush from starting the Iraq quagmire that set all this terrorism and persecution in motion.

Set in motion by Bush lies according to Trump.

Iraq should be a lesson for you Trumpsters.

NO... the courts have absolutely NO authority in matters of war or national security. Read the fucking Constitution, lame brain! It's outlined specifically in Article I (Legislative), Article II (Executive) and Article III (Judicial).

That is the Point dear. There is No Exigency that requires such policies; or, we would have real times of war tax rates or real times of national security tax rates. You cannot lower taxes and be serious about national security or War.

True national socialists, know that, dear.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

It is Why we resort to Capitalism; for the "honest" market based metrics.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 16571261

BUT... That said, I think Trump CAN restrict Muslims from travelling here if he "deems it appropriate" because the statutory law he is using doesn't restrict him in any way.

When the Constitution was written the framers did not know what 'statutory' laws would be written, and that is why all laws and actions by the Legislative and executive branch are reviewable by the Judicial Branch. Laws do not have to restrict the President. It is forever enshrined in the Constitution that the President can be checked.

It is dictatorship if a President is above the Constitution.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 16571261

BUT... That said, I think Trump CAN restrict Muslims from travelling here if he "deems it appropriate" ....

The judge basically said his deeming it appropriate must be based upon rational facts.

You think a president should imagine inappropriate reasons that a threat exists. Like Bush on Iraq's WMD.

Anyway the Establishment Clause says the Federal Governnent cannot discriminate against any religion. That extends beyond the US borders because religion exists beyond US borders.

When considering who to let in the Executive Branch cannot refuse a certain religion. ThAT would be protecting a particular religion or religions within the US. Terrorists acting falsely in the name of religion does not justify condemning or restricting immigration or travel to the US by adherents to that victimized religion.

Trump had not banned immigration or travel from predominately Muslim nations that have produced numerous terrorist that attacked Americans on US soil. His ban was never based rational thought according to the judges.

We don't need a judge to tell us Trump is irrational. That message is for Trump.

 

[Boss]

Anyway the Establishment Clause says the Federal Governnent cannot discriminate against any religion. That extends beyond the US borders because religion exists beyond US borders.

It doesn't. You're misunderstanding the entire Constitution.

 

[Boss]

When considering who to let in the Executive Branch cannot refuse a certain religion...

The Executive Branch doesn't get to decide who to let in. That's Congress, and they can decide to let in whomever they please, it's an enumerated power of Congress. All power to regulate immigration and naturalization rests with Congress.

Trump's EO has nothing to do with whom to let in. It's not a BAN... it is a restriction on travel. A DELAY... NOT A BAN! It also doesn't mention any specific religion. It simply delays entry from certain countries and it has been done by the last 6 presidents including Obama who did it 19 times.

You've totally lost this debate on every front. You don't understand the Constitution. You don't understand separation of powers. You don't understand the difference between immigration laws and travel restrictions.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 16576827

Trump's EO has nothing to do with whom to let in. It's not a BAN... it is a restriction on travel. A DELAY... NOT A BAN! It also doesn't mention any specific religion.

Fool;

This is an open ended Muslim ban from all countries where Muslims are the majority religion,

"Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization."


That is an across the board discrimination against any Muslim majority religion in countries where Muslims are being persecuted.

It is in violation of the Establishment Clause. That is what no previous President has ever done.

 

[EverCurious]

You mean like Obama's peeps saying they prioritized Christian refugees back in 2015?

Idiots.

 

[Boss]

It is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The EC applies to US citizens and foreign nationals residing inside US borders, specifically, laws governing them. IT does NOT apply to foreign citizens of other countries. You can keep making this idiotic point but it's invalid.

The reason immigration is not discriminated against based on religion is NOT the EC, it is the Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed by Congress. It says that we will not discriminate in issuing visas based on a religious test. The Trump travel restriction has nothing to do with the policies regarding how we issue visas.

The exception made for persecuted minority religions is not a "religious test" but a humanitarian effort. Other presidents have done the same thing. That seems to be the part of this you want to ignore... Other presidents have used this very same statutory law in much the same way Trump has, and it has never been an issue.

It is not unconstitutional... you can stomp and kick and scream and whine... it's still not going to be unconstitutional. But no matter what anyone says or how much your arguments are eviscerated, you will remain a retarded idiot.

 

[Boss]

This is an open ended Muslim ban from all countries where Muslims are the majority religion,

Nope... it's NOT a ban and it's NOT on Muslims.

You, repeatedly claiming it is, doesn't really fucking matter here.

 

[danielpalos]

It is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The EC applies to US citizens and foreign nationals residing inside US borders, specifically, laws governing them. IT does NOT apply to foreign citizens of other countries. You can keep making this idiotic point but it's invalid.

The reason immigration is not discriminated against based on religion is NOT the EC, it is the Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed by Congress. It says that we will not discriminate in issuing visas based on a religious test. The Trump travel restriction has nothing to do with the policies regarding how we issue visas.

The exception made for persecuted minority religions is not a "religious test" but a humanitarian effort. Other presidents have done the same thing. That seems to be the part of this you want to ignore... Other presidents have used this very same statutory law in much the same way Trump has, and it has never been an issue.

It is not unconstitutional... you can stomp and kick and scream and whine... it's still not going to be unconstitutional. But no matter what anyone says or how much your arguments are eviscerated, you will remain a retarded idiot.

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#Provisions

 

[Boss]

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#Provisions

But a TRAVEL DELAY has nothing to do with immigration policy!

If the airlines tells you that your flight has been delayed due to weather conditions, it doesn't mean the airline has unfairly discriminated against you flying on their planes based on your race. It would be kooky and insane to make such a correlation.

If Trump had issued an EO that said we're not accepting anymore immigrants from these Muslim countries.. that would not be Constitutional. The President can't make immigration policy. Congress could do that, just as they passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. But what Trump did was put a temporary hold on travel from certain countries until we can get a verifiable vetting process in place.

This is well within his authority as President and we have to really wonder why idiots like you are objecting to this. Do you not believe it's important to check people out and make sure they're not terrorists before we let them in? I'm betting a vast majority of America doesn't have a problem with this.

 

[danielpalos]

One of the main components aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#Provisions

But a TRAVEL DELAY has nothing to do with immigration policy!

If the airlines tells you that your flight has been delayed due to weather conditions, it doesn't mean the airline has unfairly discriminated against you flying on their planes based on your race. It would be kooky and insane to make such a correlation.

If Trump had issued an EO that said we're not accepting anymore immigrants from these Muslim countries.. that would not be Constitutional. The President can't make immigration policy. Congress could do that, just as they passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. But what Trump did was put a temporary hold on travel from certain countries until we can get a verifiable vetting process in place.

This is well within his authority as President and we have to really wonder why idiots like you are objecting to this. Do you not believe it's important to check people out and make sure they're not terrorists before we let them in? I'm betting a vast majority of America doesn't have a problem with this.

It has more to do with perceived conflicts of interest, in my opinion:

The order states the visa process “plays a crucial role” in stopping terrorists from entering the country. It mentions the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a key moment when the process failed. However, the hijackers were largely from Saudi Arabia – a country that is not on the travel ban. In addition, the ban does not include countries where people behind some of the most recent attacks were born. And despite the State Department deeming some countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan as “terrorist safe havens” in 2015, those nations didn’t make the list.--https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/immigration-order-explainer/

Is it truly about "national security" or just fulfilling a pander pledge?

 

[Boss]

Perceptions,pandering pledges and putting air quotes around national security are evidence of partisan political hakery and not objective analysis. I didn't vote for Trump and I caught hell from Trump supporters because of that. If he were actually violating the Constitution, don't you understand I would be the first one here to call him out on it and throw that in the face of his pom-pom-waving fan base who called me every name in the book?

Everyone who knows and understands the Constitution realizes the President has full authority to issue this EO. The left has decided to seize on any technicality, no matter how slight, to hamper, stall, obstruct and delay the President. To make it as impossible to govern as they can for him. This really has nothing to do with constitutional principles and everything to do with partisan politics and obstruction.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not sure you actually understand the concepts.

A president can issue executive orders, but they have to be pursuant to our supreme law of the land.

We have laws regarding immigration; not just regarding executive orders.

 

[Boss]

I am not sure you actually understand the concepts.

A president can issue executive orders, but they have to be pursuant to our supreme law of the land.

We have laws regarding immigration; not just regarding executive orders.

SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:

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.

This has nothing to do with immigration policy. The executive order did not seek to change our immigration policy. It merely imposed a temporary waiting period for persons from certain countries where we have a problem with vetting. It doesn't say anyone is BANNED on the basis of religion or anything else.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not sure you actually understand the concepts.

A president can issue executive orders, but they have to be pursuant to our supreme law of the land.

We have laws regarding immigration; not just regarding executive orders.

SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:

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.

This has nothing to do with immigration policy. The executive order did not seek to change our immigration policy. It merely imposed a temporary waiting period for persons from certain countries where we have a problem with vetting. It doesn't say anyone is BANNED on the basis of religion or anything else.

yes, it does.

Only the right wing believes a statute or clause can operate in a vacuum of special pleading.

 

[EverCurious]

If Trump had issued an EO that said we're not accepting anymore immigrants from these Muslim countries.. that would not be Constitutional. The President can't make immigration policy. Congress could do that, just as they passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. But what Trump did was put a temporary hold on travel from certain countries until we can get a verifiable vetting process in place.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was in the President's power to set the numbers of immigrants coming in from wherever, that's how we ended up with Obama agreeing to take tens of thousands "more" refugees, and Clinton campaigned with the same promise.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss, post: 16579956

This is well within his authority as President and we have to really wonder why idiots like you are objecting to this.

The Senate Majority agreed with me. He would likely assume you are an idiot if you this conversation with him.


McConnell: Trump's powers aren't above judicial review
By LOUIS NELSON


02/15/17 10:19 AM EST

((The executive powers of President Donald Trump are not above judicial review, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday, offering gentle pushback that followed assertions from White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller that federal judges overstepped their bounds by blocking one of Trump’s controversial executive orders on immigration.

“I mean, under the Constitution, all of our actions are subject to judicial review,” McConnell (R-Ky.) told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in an interview that was taped on Tuesday and aired Wednesday morning.))

McConnell: Trump's powers aren't above judicial review

And you are an idiot as I have been telling you.