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.

 

Customs agents ignore judge, enforce Trump’s travel ban: ACLU

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

Shhh facts have no place in a political frenzy...

Thank you for posting actual information, that is pertinent to the discussion rather than political talking points.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
If you'll recall, in the Oath of Presidency, Presidents agree to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So even the President answers to the law and who upholds the law? The bench.


You see, things have changed alot since the Constitution was written.

The President now has the power to arrest any citizen, and hold that person indefinitely, without trial.

That means, any Judge that goes against the President can now be detained, sent to Guantanamo, and held there in perpetuity. He may even be waterboarded, if Trump gets his way.

Because of all the powers of "exceptions" that have been introduced under the Patriot Act, everybody has to "cooperate" to go along, and to be in agreement. What happens when there's disagreement on the interpretation of the Constitution?

The Power remains in the Executive branch.

The President has the power to "win", and that's all The Donald has ever cared about: "winning."



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I love this, when Former president Obama (yes, that feel SO good to type) did not enforce immigration laws ALREADY in place and the southern borders States were screaming about it, it was "to bad so sad", "I have a pen and a phone" but now that President Trump is doing it, it's baaad. I didn't Vote for President Trump. However I do love that fact that "what comes around, goes around".

I'm almost 56 years old and this is the first time that I can recall a President actually fulfilling campaign promises.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

believe paul ryan is speaker of the house ,Prebus used to be republican shot caller before he got put on staff position



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
. . . when Former president Obama did not enforce immigration laws ALREADY in place and the southern borders States


But, he did.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Actually 8 U.S.C. §1182 would disagree with you.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdChillin

What about Trumps EO is in disagreement with 8 U.S.C. § 1182?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I'm all for protecting borders etc.

But how long will it be before he doesn't let Americans out of America?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Ohanka
When judges are going against the laws in favour of political posturing, then they should be ignored.


Actually, as we see it is Trump going against the laws in favour of political posturing....


Is that so? Wanna quote which laws?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Ohanka

Who is the current "leader" of the Democratic/Left party? I don't think they one.



Does the Right have one?

Other then Trump who they can't control?


Control him into doing what? So far he is doing his job very well as far as keeping his promises....something the last president did a very very extremely poor job of doing.

Trumps election is the beginning of the end for the Libs. By by.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

Thank you for asking. Star for your curiosity. You can hear it straight from the ACLU here: Muslim Ban Unconstitutional & Illegal
edit on 29-1-2017 by ColdChillin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DarkvsLight29

I completely agree. People seem to forget that what keeps people out can also keep people in.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake

Right but neither is a presidential directive. It all comes down to jurisdiction and if you would take the time to read the link I posted, it very clearly explains that Federal question jurisdiction supercedes the President of the United States. Those pesky checks and balances, don't ya know. Keeps would-be dictators in their place.
See, the Federal bench doesn't answer to POTUS, they answer to the Constitution.
edit on 29-1-2017 by ColdChillin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

I'm going to wait for HelloBruce to answer but I'm itching to do it for him.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

No, it doesn't. Sorry. The ultimate power in this country rests with the Federal bench which is why, for instance, when Obama was fighting for the Affordable Care Act, he had to take it to SCOTUS. He couldn't just say this is how it is, deal with it. It's a common misconception that the Executive Branch is the ultimate authority. If this was Russia, you would be correct. Further, Federal question jurisdiction was amended in 1976. This isn't a 240 year old question, dude.
edit on 29-1-2017 by ColdChillin because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2017 by ColdChillin because: Lol. Basic math



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

You are clearly arguing the Whelan-Paulsen argument. If you read this article, and I mean the entire article, not just halfway through, you'll see why your argument fails. Again. I'm not being a jerk but it's important to realize the Constitutional framework of our republic.
Whelan-Paulsen Argument



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: AMPTAH

No, it doesn't. Sorry. The ultimate power in this country rests with the Federal bench which is why, for instance, when Obama was fighting for the Affordable Care Act, he had to take it to SCOTUS. He couldn't just say this is how it is, deal with it. It's a common misconception that the Executive Branch is the ultimate authority. If this was Russia, you would be correct. Further, Federal question jurisdiction was amended in 1976. This isn't a 240 year old question, dude.


Congress passed the ACA. SCOTUS had nothing to do with it's passage and was only pulled into the quagmire to decide on two major issues, subsidies and financial penalties for non compliance.


The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 25, 2015 that subsidies were legal. The IRS will be able to issue subsidies on behalf of those who bought a plan through HealthCare.Gov after the plaintiffs in King V. Burwell lost their challenge


SNIP


The decision on the ObamaCare ruling by the Supreme Court on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was decided on June 28, 2012. The Supreme Court ObamaCare ruling was a 5-4 ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act. The final ruling on ObamaCare had a few implications, ranging from ObamaCare being defined as a tax and not a mandate to a choice

obamacarefacts.com...


Are you referring to SCOTUS as the Federal bench?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

So, federal customs agents are ignoring an order from the judiciary, really?

Do you people understand this?

This does not bode well.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: Alien Abduct

I'm going to wait for HelloBruce to answer but I'm itching to do it for him.


Go for it.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Federal court system in general and you are arguing semantics. Was a case necessary in front of SCOTUS to reach a final agreement, yes or no? The answer is yes. So, they are the last word period.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join