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: 48
89
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5

A wall is far from a new idea.
en.wikipedia.org...



As of January 2010, the fence project had been completed from San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona.[dubious – discuss] From there it continued into Texas and consisted of a fence that was 21 feet (6.4 m) tall and 6 feet (1.8 m) deep in the ground, cemented in a 3-foot (0.91 m)-wide trench with 5000 psi (345 bar; 352 kg/cm²) concrete.


It was abandoned because it was a financial boondoggle. Why is Trump trying to revive it?


I repeated that a few times.

No one wants to hear it.




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

There is a wall built between San Diego California all the way through Arizona and ending in New Mexico. The wall in Texas has been under construction for a while now. The entire border wall plan started back in 1994 and consist of pedestrian and vehicle wall barriers. The wall continued construction through the Obama administration and enforcement numbers showed a 61% decline in crossing. That number changed when Obama encouraged illegal immigrants to come to the US, coupled with a state department program that advertised food stamp and other programs US programs on the mexican side of the border.

If Mexico refuses to enforce the law on their side of the border and actively assists people in violation US law what other options does the US have?

Mexico claims they wont pay for the wall but they will set aside 50 million US dollars to fight deportation proceedings in the US.

That is not the act of a friend.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

or shoots a president, or blows up a federal building or builds package bombs while wearing a hoodie and aviators, or shoots a group of black church members, or shoot up an entire school...hold on wait...those where all white guys...and americans....i think maybe we need to deport white, christian, american men,
edit on 1-2-2017 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ipsedixit

The challenge will go nowhere as its constitutional.

4 federal judges who have ruled on the EO would have struck it down if it were illegal or unconstitutional instead of placing a temporary stop on one portion of it.


This was precisely WRONG...



Federal courts have already begun to push back against the order, and their holdings suggest that they are on to Trump’s ruse as well.

In California, Judge Dolly M. Gee ordered that Ali Khoshbakhti Vayeghan, a visa holder who had been deported from LAX to Dubai en route to Iran, be allowed to return to the United States, arguing that the order violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and that it also constituted an “establishment” of religion, thus violating one of the two religion clauses of the First Amendment.

In New York, Judge Ann M. Donnelly blocked the ban more broadly, granting temporary legal relief to multiple visa holders and refugees facing deportation, citing the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the right to due process.

These legal arguments will eventually be considered in an appellate court and perhaps the Supreme Court. There, Giuliani’s statements could set the stage for a finding that the ruling is indeed based in animus and therefore a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as these judges contend.

www.politico.com...

It was questions of constitutionality that prompted the stays.

It will be "animus" of the EO being unconstitutional that will be argued in court when it goes to trial.

The whole link is worth a read.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5

A wall is far from a new idea.
en.wikipedia.org...



As of January 2010, the fence project had been completed from San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona.[dubious – discuss] From there it continued into Texas and consisted of a fence that was 21 feet (6.4 m) tall and 6 feet (1.8 m) deep in the ground, cemented in a 3-foot (0.91 m)-wide trench with 5000 psi (345 bar; 352 kg/cm²) concrete.


It was abandoned because it was a financial boondoggle. Why is Trump trying to revive it?


Because it is a financial boondoggle.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Because it is a financial boondoggle.

All that money that WON"T be going to the Green Climate fund can be diverted lol.
Too bad that last 500 million that Obama slid their way can't be taken back...en.wikipedia.org...


A total of US$10.3 billion has been pledged so far, which is meant to cover investments over a four year period.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


That has nothing to do with Trumps Immigration plans.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

yeah it wont go anywhere as its not illegal nor unconstitutional. You, and politico, need to brush up on immigration law and how it applies.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

yeah it wont go anywhere as its not illegal nor unconstitutional. You, and politico, need to brush up on immigration law and how it applies.


Politico simply quoted the judges rulings who granted the stays?..

I assign more credibility to several Federal Judges interpretation as to whether the EO potentially runs afoul of the constitution than I do Xcathdra on ATS...that is not personal.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

There are other reasons than unconstitutionality to grant a stay. In this case, it looks to be more an issue of fairness. The Executive Order has not been struck down, nor has it been stayed. One small portion on it was temporarily stayed.

Let's take an example: suppose Raja (a VISA holder) has been visiting family in Syria. He's a student in a US college and has a part-time job as well. He says goodbye, gets on a plane back to America, and takes off. While his plane is somewhere over the Atlantic, Trump signs the Executive Order. Raja arrives in the US with no idea of what has happened. Suddenly, he is detained, questioned, and prepped for deportation back to Syria. He hasn't even had the opportunity to check in with his school or job, so he fails his courses and is fired for not showing up.

According to the judges, that is unfair. The damage that could be done to Raja is irreparable. Raja has done nothing wrong. Therefore, Raja must be released because he had no forewarning of what was happening.

The complaint that was filed in Federal court claimed unconstitutionality. The judge did not rule on that. The only ruling was that those adversely affected by the timing of the Executive Order could not be detained solely due to the Executive Order. It was well within the judges' abilities to stay the entire order. Had they done that, the Executive Order would not be in effect at all. I'm sure the Constitutionality of the order will still be formally challenged, but until that happens and a decision is made in a full court hearing, it is not unconstitutional.

Now, here's what should scare you about this whole thing: if the Executive Order is struck down at some point, all Trump has to do us whisper in the ear of the Director of the CBP, who whispers in the ear of his regional directors, who quietly start monitoring for VISAs from those 7 countries and making damn sure that nobody makes it through. No transparency, no challenges, no judges... just find something to keep them out. That is completely constitutional, but not the right way to do things.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


I never said the Federal Judges said the entire order was unconstitutional...


It would be a less frustrating exchange without that repeated straw-man IMO.


Judges do not rule on the Constitutionality of the order in emergency stay hearings..


They hear a request to stop any part of the order that might immediately harm individuals until the question of constitutionality can be answered.


That was obviously people in transit.


BUT in order for the judge to agree to the stay...they must first agree that the question of constitutionality is sufficient to grant a stay.


They DONT simply grant stays because the order effects, inconveniences, harms or upsets people..THAT is not the bar to be met...because EOs are supposed to have an effect.


So they first ask...Is there a reasonable argument that should go to trial that this EO is unconstitutional?


The judges determined YES.


BUT..until it goes to trial and litigated, a stay is designed to offer relief only to those immediately damaged by the EO..the rest is left in place ...until the EO can be fully litigated, which is fair.


No..A judge is not authorized to recklessly strike down an entire EO without a full hearing, including full arguments by the government and plaintiffs.


They first weigh if the argument that it is unconstitutional is sufficient for a hearing/trial...If yes...the Stay the parts that inflict immediate damage (those in transit) until a full hearing/trial can take place..


No...the judges did not find the EO Unconstitutional...Nor did the judges find it constitutional...They did find the argument that the EO was unconstitutional sufficiently convincing where it should go to trial to fully answer the question, and anyone that was severely impacted in the near term should be granted relief from the EO.


That is just reality...And frankly...Anyone looking into it could agree...Hoping we are on the same page.

BTW - The Politico article I linked specifically quoted the questions of constitutionality from the judges rulings that the judges said were sufficient to grant the stays. You can find the rulings yourself if you doubt Politico's reporting? Let me know if you think that fake news and I will chase it for you.
edit on 2-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

We're on a similar page... but the order could have been stayed completely, because even with notice people in those 7 countries could be irreparably harmed, just to a lesser degree. The fact that only those in transit were affected by the stay indicates to me that the judge was not convinced of overall unconstitutionality. Add in the fact that the courts are typically very unwilling to tie the President's hand on immigration matters, and the chances of this order being struck down are minuscule.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

We're on a similar page... but the order could have been stayed completely, because even with notice people in those 7 countries could be irreparably harmed, just to a lesser degree. The fact that only those in transit were affected by the stay indicates to me that the judge was not convinced of overall unconstitutionality. ...


I know I don't need to point out that joe blow in Syria waiting for his flight in a few days?

VS.

Joe blow immigrant being held by DHS without legal representation at JFK in NYC with protestors, the ACLU and a hundred lawyers banging on the door?

One of them has a very good chance of standing before a US judge and making their case..

The other has no way even to get the US to stand before a US Judge.

Of course the stay wasn't issued for people that were not challenging it.
edit on 2-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Again, if this was completely constitutional, the request for stay would have been denied. On its face, it violates the equal protection clause. It will be shot down in February and Trump needs to sit the F down and STFU.


originally posted by: DBCowboy
A federal judge has granted a temporary stay to allow detainees with valid visas to stay in the US.

I'm not seeing it as a repudiation of Trump's EO.

But it is a challenge.


I question weather a judge can "stay" an Executive Order

If a judge can tell us to ignore an Executive order, maybe an executive order can tell us to ignore judges



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
Politico simply quoted the judges rulings who granted the stays?..

and those rulings only affected one part of the EO. Have you taken the time to wonder why and that the answer doesnt support to false claim you are making?



originally posted by: Indigo5
I assign more credibility to several Federal Judges interpretation as to whether the EO potentially runs afoul of the constitution than I do Xcathdra on ATS...

Federal judges placed on the bench by obama who are ignoring the law and the constitution.


originally posted by: Indigo5
that is not personal.

just willful ignorance on your part.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5
Politico simply quoted the judges rulings who granted the stays?..

and those rulings only affected one part of the EO. Have you taken the time to wonder why and that the answer doesnt support to false claim you are making?




Yes. I answered it above already. Try reading rather than just posting stuff



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


One of them has a very good chance of standing before a US judge and making their case..

The other has no way even to get the US to stand before a US Judge.

Agreed. The latter is forced to respond to the Executive Order, while former has no opportunity to respond to it. That was the only issue, and that particular issue is now resolved. The rest of the Executive Order will still be challenged (you could probably challenge me in a lower court for abusing the oxygen supply) but a challenge is nowhere near a verdict.

Anyway, the whole order is temporary, except for denial of Syrian refugees, and I just don't see how any court can override both other branches to force an open immigration issue.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5
Yeah no you didnt...



originally posted by: acackohfcc
I question weather a judge can "stay" an Executive Order

If a judge can tell us to ignore an Executive order, maybe an executive order can tell us to ignore judges


It would depend on whether the EO goes outside the norms of the Executive branch. In this case the EO is immigration related (refugee), which is the purview of the President while also being in conjunction with a law. Because of that Congress could get involved (visa / green card / etc) (but wont).

The courts can get involved (but shouldn't) because those affected who are in the US can go for a redress of grievances via the courts (were their constitutional rights violated). Its why the courts only ruled on the deportation of green card / visa / valid refugee paperwork and limited that ruling to those only inside the US (immigration law does NOT support the judges rulings in this case).

The EO is lawful and constitutional.

People who dont understand immigration law and how it applies are confusing individual rights with that of a sovereign nations right to protect itself from non citizens / citizens outside the country. Its why if a person enters the US they are subject to search, including their persons, property, electronics, phones, vehicle, boat, aircraft etc without the need of probable cause or a search warrant.

* - Border search exception = sovereign's interests at the border.

Cornell Law - Immigration Laws

For example -

Under international law, the Geneva Convention, or the laws of the United States, foreign citizens who have become disillusioned with their homeland cannot take temporary refuge within the United States. The Refugee Act of 1980 specifically leaves out temporary refuge as a form of refugee status that the U.S. government will recognize.


and


The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.


why are the courts going to have a problem with this issue?

Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens' constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.



Justiciability

Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.



Political Question Doctrine

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).


Congress has authority over immigration.
The President has authority over Refugees (and immigration via law delegating to the President - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015).

Green card holders / visa holders / etc have responsibilities they must comply with to maintain their status. Violations of those responsibilities can result in the revocation of their status and that can be done at the agent level at the border control location. Just because you have one of these does not grant the full rights of citizenship (Permanent residency is not unconditional). Certain law violations can result in revocation. Being from a country on the EO list can also jeopardize a green card / visa / refugee status.

The EO is lawful and constitutional.
edit on 3-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: acackohfcc


If a judge can tell us to ignore an Executive order, maybe an executive order can tell us to ignore judges


That is the ultimate goal of Bannon's strategy. He is overloading the media's ability to process the news, and the courts' ability to determine the legality and constitutionality of the EOs. He has Trump flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks. In the end, the public will welcome any return to apparent normalcy, whether it is democratic or not. Trump promised law and order.

ETA: Here are all the bills the Bannon administration has submitted to Congress to be passed into law by constitutional means:


edit on 3-2-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Isn't it a good thing that the Executive branch is not trying to change the law?
What is wrong with the current laws?
You do understand that the Executive Branch's role is to enforce the law, right, not make them?


The executive branch of the U.S. government is responsible for enforcing laws; its power is vested in the President. The President acts as both the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Independent federal agencies are tasked with enforcing the laws enacted by Congress.


This is not the first time you have posted that page, which provides us no insight other than you not really understanding the Executive Branch.

There will, of course, be laws passed (for example tax) in time, but there is no mad rush to change laws. Perhaps Congress is busy trying to agree cabinet nominees and having to deal with childish Democrats?

By the way, Obama's first signed bill was January 29th, 2009 so he had 1 at this point in his Presidency. It was introduced by someone else and worked on before he even took office.
edit on 3/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join