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

[Boss]

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.

I think that is due to the classification as "refugees" which are exempted from the provisions of the INA for humanitarian reasons. According to the Constitution, Congress is the authority in charge of immigration and naturalization.

 

[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.

I think that is due to the classification as "refugees" which are exempted from the provisions of the INA for humanitarian reasons. According to the Constitution, Congress is the authority in charge of immigration and naturalization.

Gotcha, I suppose that is a distinction. Still that would mean President Trump could go that route then and just say zero refugees from all those countries, yea?

 

[Boss]

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

Ughhhhh...... I DID NOT SAY THAT TRUMPS POWERS ARE ABOVE JUDICIAL REVIEWWWWWWWW!

We have separation of powers. Each of the three branches of government have specified or "enumerated" powers outlined in the Constitution. Do you not understand that? For example, it is the judicial branch who gets to adjudicate cases brought before it. The president can't step in and override the court because he doesn't like a ruling, nor can congress. The Congress gets to legislate and pass laws.... the president can't pass laws, nor can the court. The president gets to administratively execute... not the court, not the Congress. They all three have specified enumerated powers granted under the Constitution which do not belong to the other two.

Trump is acting in accordance to law passed by Congress. He is administratively executing the law. There is nothing unconstitutional in what he has done. You can argue that the law he is executing is unconstitutional but that also isn't true, the law hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. You may THINK it's unconstitutional but I think it's unconstitutional for women to kill their unborn babies. Thinking it doesn't make it so.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution is pitching the fit.

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause has absolutely nothing to do with this. Sorry!

Sure it does; it makes the right wing "immoral to our supreme law of the land" for wanting to ban Persons based on Religion.

Precedence should be based on secular and temporal Need; regardless of Religion.

 

[danielpalos]

EverCurious, post: 16563298

I posted a video from 2015 where Obama's immigration Admin stated under oath that they prioritize Christians as a prosecuted religion, so no it's not unconstitutional despite ya'lls fantasies.

You and your video makes no sense. If it does, why did the Trump Admin go out of its way not to mention a religion iIn the EO?

"The Trump administration has argued that the ban is necessary to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country and is not discriminatory because the text of the order does not mention any particular religion."

Washington State Attorney General Promises To Uncover 'What Truly Motivated' Trump's Travel Ban | The Huffington Post

Why did Rudy make it a point to make it a secret Muslim ban by wording it as a threat?

If they wanted to favor foreign national Christians and not be worried at all about the Establishment Clause why did Rudy say what he said?

Why could a ban on foreign nationals based on religion be discriminatory according to Trump's own people if the Establishment Clause does not apply?

How long will you hide from this valid point.

You can't argue bullshit like this in court. It's not a fact free zone like Trump World where you live.

because our federales are incompetent? We have a Commerce Clause.

 

[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.

crony capitalists have nothing but apology for capital excuses, instead of capital results.

We have a Commerce Clause.

But after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.

Zero.

Source: Where America's Terrorists Actually Come From

 

[danielpalos]

Our Commerce Clause must apply, simply because we have a Merchant in Commerce, in Chief.

 

[danielpalos]

When is Mr. Trump going to practice the "Art of the Deal" and earn multibillion dollar bonuses for the People.

We already have professional politicians for political stuff.