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: 49
89
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


there is no mad rush to change laws.


But there is a mad rush to order people to do things, without checking to see if the orders are legal or not.




posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


there is no mad rush to change laws.


But there is a mad rush to order people to do things, without checking to see if the orders are legal or not.


We don't know what checks were made on legality. My money is on the fact that all his EO's have been checked.
We will see if any legal challenges to the EOs (which the stay's were not) pass muster.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


My money is on the fact that all his EO's have been checked.


Then why are the Attorney General, DHS, State Department, etc, acting so surprised and confused?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


My money is on the fact that all his EO's have been checked.


Then why are the Attorney General, DHS, State Department, etc, acting so surprised and confused?


They are not.
More fake news. You seem to be lapping it up.

time.com...

The AG's office also knew about the order and gave it the all clear.

The Justice Department confirmed its Office of Legal Counsel had done a review of the order to determine whether it was "on its face, lawful, and properly drafted."

www.npr.org...


But hey, why listen to the actual people involved when you can push some propaganda...


edit on 3/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


The AG's office also knew about the order and gave it the all clear.


Spin away:


But the objections Yates raised in her letter pointed out that the OLC review didn't consider statements "made by an administration or its surrogates...that may bear on the order's purpose."


www.npr.org...

Not exactly an "all clear."



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


The AG's office also knew about the order and gave it the all clear.


Spin away:


But the objections Yates raised in her letter pointed out that the OLC review didn't consider statements "made by an administration or its surrogates...that may bear on the order's purpose."


www.npr.org...

Not exactly an "all clear."


Yes - exactly all clear.
The Justice dept reviewed the EO and Yates used statements made outside the EO itself to determine her position.
Either way your statement was false. There was no surprise.
Come back to reality.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


There was no surprise.


What orders were issued to immigration agents and when? Kelly knew about the order, sure, but what action did he take?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


There was no surprise.


What orders were issued to immigration agents and when? Kelly knew about the order, sure, but what action did he take?


He already said in his interview that his team had briefed him and been working on it.
The orders were certainly issued. I know that because people were stopped from entering the country. It's a dead give away.

edit on 3/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Where he heck are you getting your information from???



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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.


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


The court is specifically meant to be a check on the executive branch.

And this would not be over-riding the legislative branch, it would supporting it...If the Judicial branch finds the EO unconstitutional and illegal in the context of (a) the constitution and (b) the immigration act..

You are welcome to a legal opinion as am I...

But as I have outlined here repeatedly with citation...I believe there is a strong case the EO is illegal and even temporarily illegal EOs can be struck down.

HERE is one of the judges rulings, All CAPS mine:


The petitioners have a STRON LIKLEHOOD OF SUCCESS in establishing the removal of the petitioners and others similarly situated violates their right to Due Process and Equal Protection as guaranteed by the United States Constitution


i2.cdn.turner.com...

I remember a time when Conservatives gave a # about the constitution... Pretty disgusting...



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Your post and legal order relate to the people in transit.


Now, let’s be clear: The stay does not strike down the full executive order. It does not allow people to come to the US who are currently abroad. What it does is “preserve the status quo” for people who came to the US in the immediate aftermath of the executive order, after having been granted visas allowing them to legally come to the US (before the order was signed).


www.vox.com...
edit on 3/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Please allow me to do some 'all-capping' of my own:

The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success IN ESTABLISHING THE REMOVAL OF THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED violates their right to Due Process and Equal Protection as guaranteed by the United States Constitution

i2.cdn.turner.com...

As I said, this only provides relief for those who did not have opportunity to react to the order. Those have/had a legitimate complaint with the Executive Order. Those simply inconvenienced but able to avoid travel to the US have no such rights under US law.

That relief, the right to be released because no intent to violate US law could be established, has been granted. All detainees are now free. They are not going to be hunted down and captured regardless of the decision at the hearing. The rest of the Executive Order was not mentioned.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


So it took near 50 pages for you to admit PARTS of the EO were unconstitutional?

Let's see where the follow-up lawsuits land regarding the rest of the order...

A tonnage of people who work for US companies and with the US military have been separated from their families...

This guy is rightly enraged..




Iraqi general who works with American military kept from visiting U.S.

“I’m a four star general, and I’m banned from entering the U.S.?” he said.

His family was relocated to the U.S. for their safety, and he’d had plans to see them next week, until he was told not to bother.

“I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning,” he said. “Now my kids are now asking if I’m a terrorist?”

www.cbsnews.com...

You will say that Trump might make an exception for him...

But that is neither how the law works, not our democracy...

We do not have kings that blithely wave their hand to grant admittance...

The entire Executive Order is joke..It reflects incompetence and ignorance ..



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

The EO has not been shown to be unconstitutional.
A judge ordered that in the implementation some people were caught up in transit and granted them a stay.
Nothing to do with the wording of the EO.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I said in my very first post that I agreed with the stay order. I have not changed my mind. It has taken this long to convince you of that.

But I also agree with the Executive Order and the Constitutionality of it overall. The only issue was transition, and that has been resolved. One could argue, I suppose, that the transition issue was due in large part to the transition of power. In hindsight, it would have been easy to resolve if border agents had been instructed to verify boarding times before enforcing the order.


We do not have kings that blithely wave their hand to grant admittance...

Yes, we do! We always have had, not an actual 'king,' but a defacto 'king' where immigration is concerned, who operates under exceptionally broad guidelines determined by the Congress. That is not something that can be reasonably changed. Nefarious people exist; some can and do seek to cause mass destruction. Some means that can quickly respond to such is critically needed, and only a single person can respond to such an immediate threat. Congress can't; the courts can't; only an executive can... the Chief Executive of the United States, who we call the President.

Ideologies are wonderful things, but they are not always compatible with reality. I believe your intense, illogical hatred of one man has blinded you to the realities surrounding immigration in general. That is a bad thing.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Dbl. Post

edit on 2/3/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

I said in my very first post that I agreed with the stay order. I have not changed my mind. It has taken this long to convince you of that.

But I also agree with the Executive Order and the Constitutionality of it overall. The only issue was transition, and that has been resolved. One could argue, I suppose, that the transition issue was due in large part to the transition of power. In hindsight, it would have been easy to resolve if border agents had been instructed to verify boarding times before enforcing the order.


We do not have kings that blithely wave their hand to grant admittance...

Yes, we do! We always have had, not an actual 'king,' but a defacto 'king' where immigration is concerned, who operates under exceptionally broad guidelines determined by the Congress.


I understand fully that is the narrative, but the foundation of that narrative has always been tenuous, Pres. Obama's own immigration EO was struck down...and on much slighter grounds than the unapologetically unconstitutional foundation Trump has premised this EO on..

It is important to separate cheerleading from objective analysis...Not that I expect that to happen...but reality matters a lot to Federal Judges.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Do you have a copy of the decision that struck down Obama's Executive Order? I would like to peruse that.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

If you carefully read 8 USC 1182 mentioned trough out this thread you would find it in no way gives permission for Obama to thwart immigration law which is what his EO did and judge rightfully stayed.

In other words Obama was making up law instead of carrying out legislatively passed constitutional law.

Trump on other hand only instructed beauracracy to carry out law within authority granted by Congress.

The former is roundly considered unconstutional

The latter is roundly considered constitutional

You are comparing apples and oranges.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Trump on other hand only instructed beauracracy to carry out law within authority granted by Congress.



No...

Enough though. I have posted enough where I am repeating posts.

You can research yourself if you objectively care about substance..

Ignore if you don't.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join