It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Emergency Stay Granted - Defeat for Trump's Right Wing Agenda

page: 41
89
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

So as I said...
I know what you said:

Your quote disagrees with you...an executive order is law until either the courts or congress overturn it which is exactly what I said.


And, I know what I said. I said that an EO is not a law. The president cannot make law. Only Congress can do that.

edit on 1/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

The 30 day thing is for rules and some regulations.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Wow - Obama appointed acting attorney general has made a statement that they will not defend the court challenges against the EO, with the Democrats in teh Senate continuing to delay Jess Sessions to replace the acting AG.
Democrats actively trying to overthrow the govt.


wasn't appointed by Trump its ahold over from Obama. She in in charge until his appointment is confirmed. But I will say she just lost her job. Normally she would have remained if Trumps appointment decided to keep her I find that unlikely now.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: raymundoko

So as I said...
I know what you said:

Your quote disagrees with you...an executive order is law until either the courts or congress overturn it which is exactly what I said.


And, I know what I said. I said that an EO is not a law. The president cannot make law. Only Congress can do that.



As I said earlier your right an EO is simply the administration branches implementation for a law passed by congress.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rickymouse
It's only a temporary ban . .


You honestly believe that?


Yes. It is the same as legislation that was done a while back by Obama and congress. There will be stricter rules in the future after the ban though, they will be able to use social media comments to deny someone. Maybe they will kick out some immigrants that are starting chaos here before they get citizenship too. You know if you were not a legal citizen before and you made waves, you were kicked out of this country. Those rules are still on the books, no law has to be passed to enforce them.


Just so you know as we go along here, it is the process of doing things that I'm watching.

I am a methodical thinker. I like things planned out. I like problem areas addressed before decisions are made.

I am not a fan of "trigger finger" implementation.



I agree I'm not a fan of ad hoc decisions and it seems he didn't plan this out vry well. Had he thought it through he would have told them exactly how to deal with Visa holders. Had he thought about it he could have put them under a review on a case by case basis. But it seems it caught him off guard


Yes. That is how government is supposed to work.

His Ego is in the way.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Should I reply to the original post or the completely different edited one?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: UKTruth
Wow - Obama appointed acting attorney general has made a statement that they will not defend the court challenges against the EO, with the Democrats in teh Senate continuing to delay Jess Sessions to replace the acting AG.
Democrats actively trying to overthrow the govt.


wasn't appointed by Trump its ahold over from Obama. She in in charge until his appointment is confirmed. But I will say she just lost her job. Normally she would have remained if Trumps appointment decided to keep her I find that unlikely now.


The partisan nature of your govt is so toxic. Never seen anything like it.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If a federal employee goes against an EO have they commited a crime?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Phage

If a federal employee goes against an EO have they commited a crime?



Executive Orders vs. Proclamations

Presidential proclamations differ from executive orders in that they are either ceremonial in nature or deal with issues of trade and may or may not carry legal effect. Executive orders have the legal effect of a law.


usgovinfo.about.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

My question was rhetorical. The point was that an EO is law. It has the force of law and breaking and EO is a criminal offense. Sure, it's federal employees, but that is still law.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Phage

If a federal employee goes against an EO have they commited a crime?



Technically yes she did as they say that decision is above her pay grade as they say. It isn't her job to interpret an existing law.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Kind of correct. An EO can completely change ways of doing/enforcing things which may or may not completely re-define an existing law.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I don't know. Would they be prosecuted, or fired?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

The original. By all means. If I didn't say "An EO is not a law."

edit on 1/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: raymundoko

I don't know. Would they be prosecuted, or fired?

Depends on how they wish to proceed.

Prosecutions related to Executive Order 6102



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
Seems that there was a single attempt at prosecution under the EO?

There was a need to strengthen Executive Order 6102, as the one prosecution under the order was ruled invalid by federal judge John M. Woolsey, on the grounds that the order was signed by the President, not the Secretary of the Treasury as required.[10]


That's when Congress got involved and made it an actual law.


edit on 1/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But a technicality made the case not go forward. The point is it is a criminal offense to intentionally defy an EO...which means it's a law, simply one that only applies to federal branches instead of civilian population and business.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




But a technicality made the case not go forward.
You mean the technicality that the President cannot write laws?


The point is it is a criminal offense to intentionally defy an EO
I'm not so sure about that. Like I said, fired, sure. Prosecuted, not so sure.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Acting AG had just been fired.
Good



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

An Executive Order has the weight of law toward Federal employees (not the public) in that the employees cannot be prosecuted for following it. A Federal employee who refuses to follow it can be fired for failure to perform their duty, and I believe they could be held legally liable if their refusal caused legal harm to another. That's really no different than not following any rule or law that leads to such. The Executive Order defines their job duties unless a stay is imposed by the courts.

In this case, once Trump signed the Executive Order, every Border Protection officer was obligated to follow it. Had they refused and let someone in who set off a bomb, they could have been held legally liable as an accomplice. The court-ordered stay protected them legally and allowed them to admit the non-citizens being detained, and protected them from disciplinary action for their actions. Refusal to follow the Executive Order could have resulted in them losing their jobs for the equivalent of insubordination, but would not by itself resulted in legal action.

I now wonder what the legal ramifications of firing an Attorney General are? She herself could be accused of refusing to follow legal orders by refusing to defend the administration, especially if Trump orders her to. I wonder if she could face similar legal consequences as an officer who let a terrorist through?

I believe the law would allow Trump to unilaterally appoint a temporary Attorney General, but I am not sure about that. If so, I think Congress could override after the fact, but could not prevent the appointment. If it were me, I'd appoint Dick Cheney just to make a point.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
89
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join