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: 44
89
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

Again you are incorrect. If the EO was illegal or unconstitutional the judges would have ruled as such and struck it down in its entirety. The EO is lawful and constitutional.

The arguments were made by the lawyers who brought the challenge.


And who was there to speak on behalf of the givernment?

Do you know the purpose of a stay?

It does not mean the EO is constitutional or not in conflict with law.

It means that there was sufficient case made to schedule a court date to determine the same..

If there was not a good case made..The stay would not have been issued.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

No not having been in law enforcement in 2 states for 15+ years I am exceedingly stupid when it coes to how our legal system works and what terms mean.

Can you explain it to me please..

/end sarcasm

The stay was issued for a part of the EO, meaning that one section is temporarily blocked from being enforced. It left everything else intact.

If the EO were unconstitutional the judge could have ruled as such, striking it all down. The stay was issued only for people inside the US, because they are required to have a means of legal recourse. It was not applied to people in the same situation outside the US.

Are you understanding now or do I need to explain it again?
edit on 30-1-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

She's still fired. I guess that argument didn't work for her.

TheRedneck


Sessions is starting in a few days..after thirty years s I doubt she is missing the three days she would have had to deal with an unstable wack jobs EO.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

She's still fired. I guess that argument didn't work for her.

TheRedneck


Sessions is starting in a few days..after thirty years s I doubt she is missing the three days she would have had to deal with an unstable wack jobs EO.


Yep. She was already gone.

Good for her going out by standing for what's right.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So why did ..something like 6 federal judges..interfere with an EO that was perfectly valid, constitutional and legal? And felt compelled to halt parts of it altogether?
edit on 30-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


6+ Federal Judges would not have put a stay on it unless they found their was merit to the case it is unconstitutional or contradicts law.

A Stay of Execution is not a decision on Constitutionality. It is simply a relief mechanism employed to stop actions which could cause irrevocable damage to another until an actual hearing can be held. There is no requirement for both parties to even be present, and the stay is not considered a verdict.

The stay in this case did NOT invalidate the Executive Order. It only covered those already in process and/or in transit. Anyone from those 7 countries who departed after the Executive Order was signed are still barred from entry.

And consider this: if any of those covered by the stay are later found involved in an act of violence, what for you think that will do to Trump's approval rating? The opposition is taking a massive risk here.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

They ruled on one part dealing with people already inside the US. What part of that are you just not understanding?


The order barred U.S. border agents from removing anyone who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

It also covered anyone with an approved refugee application.


Already inside the US and only with a valid visa or approved refugee application.

thats it.. thats all the stays apply to. They did not interfere with the EO. Those individuals in the above categories already inside the US have legal rights to contest the order because it directly affects them (also called standing).

Outside the US they have no legal standing.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5


6+ Federal Judges would not have put a stay on it unless they found their was merit to the case it is unconstitutional or contradicts law.

A Stay of Execution is not a decision on Constitutionality. It is simply a relief mechanism employed to stop actions which could cause irrevocable damage to another until an actual hearing can be held. There is no requirement for both parties to even be present, and the stay is not considered a verdict.

The stay in this case did NOT invalidate the Executive Order. It only covered those already in process and/or in transit. Anyone from those 7 countries who departed after the Executive Order was signed are still barred from entry.

And consider this: if any of those covered by the stay are later found involved in an act of violence, what for you think that will do to Trump's approval rating? The opposition is taking a massive risk here.

TheRedneck


Until a hearing can be held...

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Cuz xthanda was contending that they would have concluded that instantaneously..and since they did not immediately strike it down it is constitutional...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Phage

You are confused, I expected better.

ex·ec·u·tive or·der
nounLAWUS
a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law.

So as I said...it's enforceable as a law until congress or the courts overturn it.

www.usa.gov...


Having the force of law is not a law...Jesus..if I have to argue the difference between the legislative branch and executive...I am not interested. Potus does not create laws..EOs are enforcements docs with the force of law..not new laws.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You posted while I was writing. Never claimed to be a speed-demon at typing.

Yes, you are correct. There has been no ruling either way. But in that case, the Executive Order is legally considered Constitutional by default. That might possibly change after the court case, but I doubt it.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I find you both obnoxious and dishonest..

Watch what happens next with this..

In the meanwhile I got better things to do than trade posts with a BSer.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

here it says it all,bolding mine



In a statement issued in the early hours of Sunday, the Department said: "President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."
It added that the department will "continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people."

The stay will prevent the government from deporting citizens from the affected countries that had already arrived in the U.S.The ACLU estimated that around 200 people would be affected by the ruling. For travelers outside of the U.S. however, even those with valid visas, the ruling will not change the restrictions imposed on them by the order.
Trump Immigration Ban Still In Place Despite Court Ruling, Says DHS


same article,

In addition, Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, told the Associated Press that nothing in the judge's order "in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president's executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect."


so what this says is that those that the ACLU and a few others that have filed law suit, can stay in the U.S. until the suit is settled and the EO is found Constitutional, which it will be because the president has the control of borders due to National Security. always has been that way and will continue to be so.

plus if you notice that DHS/ICE/Customs has granted special permission to"" all green card holders from the seven countries who sought to enter the U.S. Saturday were granted special permission. and " that foreign-born U.S. residents who could have been barred from re-entering the United States under Trump's immigration order have been allowed back into the country. "



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

A judge could have ruled the entire EO as unconstitutional and issued an order preventing any part of it from being carried out effective immediately. That did not happen except for the one section I highlighted and only then affecting the 2 categories specified and then tthe ruling temporarily blocked enforcement.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

This from a person who is knowingly spreading false information for the sole purpose in that you hate Trump. Plain and simple. I am sorry you are being proven consistently wrong. Maybe if you spend more time researching and less time spreading false info we would not have to correct you as much as we do.

The EO is lawful and constitutional - fact.
The judge blocked one specific part from being enforced (temporarily) and only applied the ruling to 2 categories - fact.
The ruling does not prevent the EO from being enforced - fact.
People outside the US are not affected by the judges ruling - fact.
The AG is required to comply with EO's - Fact.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: rickymouse

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.


Did you ever watch Ghostbusters? How long would it have taken those guys to get rid of ghosts if they had to follow all the legal normal procedures and had to follow strict laws that gave those ghosts...


Holy #..did you just defend Trumps executive order based on the plot of the movie Ghostbusters??

It would be outrageous if I didn't have a suspicion that Trump thinks similarly.

God help us...


Ghostbusters.......Trump.....can't you see the similarities?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rickymouse

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.


Did you ever watch Ghostbusters? How long would it have taken those guys to get rid of ghosts if they had to follow all the legal normal procedures and had to follow strict laws that gave those ghosts rights.


You expect me to take that seriously?


Thinking methodical with Trump could drive you crazy.


Kind of the point, actually.

I don't think he's qualified for the position.


We need to properly fix the economy in this country though, but I think it may be too late. Hillary would not have done anything to fix it right, Trump seems a little overzealous. I wish Bernie would have got on the Dem ticket.

Can't we get normal honest people to run for president anymore....or should I say ever



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: rickymouse

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.


Did you ever watch Ghostbusters? How long would it have taken those guys to get rid of ghosts if they had to follow all the legal normal procedures and had to follow strict laws that gave those ghosts rights.


You expect me to take that seriously?


Thinking methodical with Trump could drive you crazy.


Kind of the point, actually.

I don't think he's qualified for the position.


We need to properly fix the economy in this country though, but I think it may be too late. Hillary would not have done anything to fix it right, Trump seems a little overzealous. I wish Bernie would have got on the Dem ticket.

Can't we get normal honest people to run for president anymore....or should I say ever


I'm definitely more Right then Left when it comes to money.

But, Trump is forging a dictatorship. Who's money is going to be important to him?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
But, Trump is forging a dictatorship.


How?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Annee
But, Trump is forging a dictatorship.


How?


In my opinion.

If you don't think so, then you have a different opinion.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Fair enough.. but how?



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join