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: 61
89
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: TheRedneck

this might help you...

www.cato.org...


So... you think law is determined by how many people say silly things?

TheRedneck




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

The 1965 law is, in fact present in current code?

Not sure what you are trying to claim?



(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

www.law.cornell.edu...




The current law has the section you have quoted AND the standing section from 1952 which gives the President power to exclude any group for as long as he deems necessary. The fact that the 1965 Act left in the specific section (212) whilst amending many other parts of section 212 should give you a clue that they had no intention of striking it down - and, indeed, did not.



The argument you are making is the failed argument that the Trump administration tried to make without success..Thier current brief is just an expansion on that faulted reasoning.



Resolution of Conflict

There is an apparent conflict between the statutes.

In the case of conflict, the rule of construction is
1) “to give effect to each but
2) to allow a later enacted
3) more specific statute to amend an earlier, more general statute,” Smith v. Robinson (1984).


The 1965 amendment is a limitation ..



On point 1, the government provided no argument that the section 202(a)(1) would still have “effect” as a prohibition if the president could choose to waive it at any time that he felt that a nationality was a detriment.

It merely stated that it applies “in the absence of action by the President.”

Judge Robart should have asked whether there is any circumstance in which the executive branch chooses to discriminate against a certain nationality in which they would describe those excluded nationals as not “detrimental” to the United States. Of course, no such case exists, meaning that the government’s argument would effectively nullify section 202(a)(1), which is naturally its intention.

On point 2, the government neglects to mention that 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) was enacted in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was amended by 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1) in the Immigration Act of 1965.

Judge Robart at oral arguments considered this point important, stating that this “Congress had to be aware of” 212(f) but chose to enact the sweeping prohibition anyway.

On point 3, the government provides the following argument:

Section 212(f) is easily reconciled with section 1152(a)(1)(A): the latter sets forth the general default rule that applies in the absence of action by the President, whereas section 212(f) governs the specific instance in which the President proclaims that the entry of a “class of aliens” would be “detrimental the interests of the United States.”

This analysis cannot be taken seriously.

Section 212(f) allows the authority to the president to ban any class of alien for any reason.

202(a)(1) limits this authority only for one small category of aliens, immigrant visa applicants.

Moreover, 212(f) is in a general section of the law dealing with inadmissibility for all aliens, not just immigrants, whereas section 202(a)(1) is a section dealing only with immigrants.

This argument from the government almost becomes humorous in light of its argument in the very next paragraph, that there is no general prohibition on discriminating based on nationality.


www.cato.org...


I read it - firstly the liberal author claims 212(f) was amended. That is a lie. It was not.
No such amendment was stipulated, but such lies can easily seep through if left unchecked.

The argument seems to be that because the authors of the 1965 Act 'must have been aware' of 212(f) that the sweeping rule in the 1965 Act was both related to 212(f) and also over ruled it - or effectively struck it down.

That is a stretch as any study of the 1965 Act clearly shows the meticulous nature of the specific sections amended or stricken. The fact 212(f) was left in place is more of an indication that it was intended to remain.

Ultimately the ruling will come from the Supreme Court and any such ruling to remove 212(f) will make significant changes to the powers of the Presidency given lawfully to the office by Congress, something the Supreme Court will not be keen to do.
edit on 6/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

Codes are summaries of laws on the books..like the 1965 Immigration ACT.






Oh, my God. Please tell me you didn't just say that.



How to help you?



The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives.


uscode.house.gov...

Your idiotic claim was to cite a code excerpt as if it supplanted the National Immigration Act..The Code derives from it, it does not nullify it.

But I see you have decided to go for an tertiary semantics argument?

What else to do when unable to argue the merits?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth


Ultimately the ruling will come from the Supreme Court and any such ruling to remove 212(f) will make significant changes to the powers of the Presidency


212(f) doesn't need to be removed? It is appropriately limited already by 202(a)(1)...

That is the existing laws and powers of the President..


edit on 6-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth


Ultimately the ruling will come from the Supreme Court and any such ruling to remove 212(f) will make significant changes to the powers of the Presidency


212(f) doesn't need to be removed? It is appropriately limited already by 202(a)(1)...

That is the existing laws and powers of the President..



212(f) is current law and it is clearly stated and has not been amended or limited.
I've read the entire 1965 Act and whilst many sections of the 1952 Act are amended or stricken, 212(f) is not.
That's just a fact.
Opinion that another law overrules it or diminishes it is where we are right now, with one Judge apparently believing it does (though we only have a liberal commentators word for that). It will go to the Supreme Court and I believe Trump will win again.
edit on 6/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Your idiotic claim was to cite a code excerpt as if it supplanted the National Immigration Act..The Code derives from it, it does not nullify it.

The "National Immigration Act" is an amendment to 8 USC, the section of United States Code that deals with immigration. My God, man, if you ever decide to walk within 2 miles of a courtroom, please get a lawyer first! And whatever you do in front of a judge, try not to talk... you are totally clueless on what law even is.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5


Your idiotic claim was to cite a code excerpt as if it supplanted the National Immigration Act..The Code derives from it, it does not nullify it.

The "National Immigration Act" is an amendment to 8 USC, the section of United States Code that deals with immigration. My God, man, if you ever decide to walk within 2 miles of a courtroom, please get a lawyer first! And whatever you do in front of a judge, try not to talk... you are totally clueless on what law even is.

TheRedneck


You keep attacking me personally...whilst I am choosing to cite actual explanations for you...lest you get distracted by the fact it is I "speaking"...

You are too busy looking to insult to recognize REALITY...




In the field of law, an enactment/a statute/a bill/a regulation which has passed through several legislative steps needed for it and which has become law is called an ACT.

At the meantime, a specific type of action made by legislature that tries to cover a complete system of laws is called a CODE. It is enacted by a process of codification.

Thus, we see, it is crystal-clear that

Act= Decision made passed into law Code= Collection of acts already passed into law

Though there is no rule when to use “Act” and when to use “Code”, E.g. “Criminal Justice Act” vs. “Penal Code”.

So undoubtedly, an ACT is a decision passed into law, where a CODE is a collection of already existing laws.

In the legal context, “Act” can be a statute or decision by legislation after a bill has been passed.

“Code” is a complete statement of the law in a given area. I think that “Code” may have a more liberal meaning in UK law - a collection of rules defined as a code of practice set by a company or governing body. It is still a collection of ‘rules' but may not be actual laws.

www.quora.com...

Let me know if you need a gazillion other links explaining it in different ways..

The National Immigration ACT...did not amend CODE it modified the previous Immigration ACT of 1952..



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Trump will throw a tantrum again, then appeal to a more conservative lower court to avoid a SCOTUS ruling

The loser will appeal to SCOTUS.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: TheRedneck

this might help you...

www.cato.org...


So... you think law is determined by how many people say silly things?



I have read your posts in this thread beginning to end...



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5


Trump will throw a tantrum again, then appeal to a more conservative lower court to avoid a SCOTUS ruling

The loser will appeal to SCOTUS.


That's just the thing...

My prediction is that Trump's advisors will avoid doing that.

SCOTUS is the one court that is most comfortable ignoring precedent (which trumps eo attempts to wobble atop), most deferential to the constitution, most aware of their responsibility to check over-reaches in other branches of gov, including the Executive...AND conservative Jurists (not politicians) have a great deal not to like about the EO..

I actually think the SCOTUS will be the most unfavorable court the EO lands in front of.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I have tossed a couple mud-balls... admitted. But this time I am honestly concerned for you. Seriously. I mean, they do still have civics class in school, right? You are so mixed up... I honestly feel sorry for you.

Go ahead and cheerlead all you want... sorry I confused you. Bless your heart.

(My God in Heaven...)

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5


Your idiotic claim was to cite a code excerpt as if it supplanted the National Immigration Act..The Code derives from it, it does not nullify it.

The "National Immigration Act" is an amendment to 8 USC, the section of United States Code that deals with immigration.



A bonus link for you..

This vote was related to H.R. 2580 (89th): An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes.

www.govtrack.us...



My God, man, if you ever decide to walk within 2 miles of a courtroom, please get a lawyer first! And whatever you do in front of a judge, try not to talk... you are totally clueless on what law even is.

TheRedneck


One of us is clearly clueless...and ass to boot.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Trump will throw a tantrum again, then appeal to a more conservative lower court to avoid a SCOTUS ruling


If it fails in the Ninth Circuit can it be taken to a lower court?
edit on 6-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Can it be taken to a lower court?

No.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I explained that the 1965 Immigration act modified the 1952 Immigrationa ct and that the CODE is a summary of those laws...

You argued that the 1965 Immigration act amended the CODE not the law?


originally posted by: TheRedneck


The "National Immigration Act" is an amendment to 8 USC, the section of United States Code that deals with immigration.


Which is ridiculous...from a foundational, fundamental, basic understanding of law..
I even was generous enough to provide you with the exact government link for that law..
Note it is amending an ACT note a CODE?
H.R. 2580 (89th): An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes.
www.govtrack.us...

So perhaps you are just pretending confusion? Not good for your brain Red...



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5


Trump will throw a tantrum again, then appeal to a more conservative lower court to avoid a SCOTUS ruling


If it fails in the Ninth Circuit can it be taken to a lower court?


After the ninth circuit either party may appeal to SCOTUS, but doesn't mean the SCOTUS will take it up...but I suspect they would.

They can also appeal to a lesser court than SCOTUS...which would be a better strategy for Trump if he loses. They can fish for a friendly judge.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5


Trump will throw a tantrum again, then appeal to a more conservative lower court to avoid a SCOTUS ruling


If it fails in the Ninth Circuit can it be taken to a lower court?


After the ninth circuit either party may appeal to SCOTUS, but doesn't mean the SCOTUS will take it up...but I suspect they would.

They can also appeal to a lesser court than SCOTUS...which would be a better strategy for Trump if he loses. They can fish for a friendly judge.


One of us doesn't understand the appeals process.....
I didn't know they could take it back to a lower court....
not saying you are wrong...
edit on 6-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5


Trump will throw a tantrum again, then appeal to a more conservative lower court to avoid a SCOTUS ruling


If it fails in the Ninth Circuit can it be taken to a lower court?


After the ninth circuit either party may appeal to SCOTUS, but doesn't mean the SCOTUS will take it up...but I suspect they would.

They can also appeal to a lesser court than SCOTUS...which would be a better strategy for Trump if he loses. They can fish for a friendly judge.


One of us doesn't understand the appeals process.....
I didn't know they could take it back to a lower court....
not saying you are wrong...

Agreed it's complex...

The ruling tomorrow will be soley on if the hold stays in place..

There are also multiple cases in process on the legality of the EO.

If the Trump admin loses tomorrow, they can appeal the temporary "stay" to Scotus...or let it sit and engage in trial on the legality of the order in one of the other courts where it is being challenged (perhaps a friendlier court) and if they succeed there, the stay is lifted by default.

As best I understand and could be wrong.

Given the fighting nature of the Admin...I suspect if they lose tomorrow on the stay issue, they will immediately appeal to SCOTUS, but I am not sure that is the best move strategically...win the battle vs. win the war mentality. We will see.

The case is State of Washington v. Trump, 17-cv-00141, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle).
The Boston case is Loughghalam v. Trump, 17-cv-10154, U.S. District Court, Massachusetts (Boston).
The appeal case is State of Washington v. Trump 17-35105, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

How come not much is said about the Boston case?
What was the outcome there?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


If the Trump admin loses tomorrow, they can appeal the temporary "stay" to Scotus...or let it sit and engage in trial on the legality of the order in one of the other courts where it is being challenged (perhaps a friendlier court) and if they succeed there, the stay is lifted by default.
So by "lower" you mean lower than the Supreme Court. With the Court lacking a justice at the moment that could be a strategic move.

I don't know if a "horizontal" appeal is a thing though.
edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join