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.

 

Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




Suddenly federal court judges are more powerful that the 'Most power man on the globe'. The President of the US.

No, not really. But are you saying that the president is above the Constitution? Are you saying that a law written by Congress overrides the Constitution?

Interesting. What part of the Constitution excludes anything the president "proclaims" from judicial review? I must have missed that clause. Please enlighten me.

edit on 2/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: watchitburn


But didn't the judge rule the EO was unconstitutional? Not the law.
Neither one. The judge ruled that the States :

1) Have standing sufficient to move for the TRO.

2) Would be likely to prevail in their claims of harm.

3) Were indeed suffering harm under the terms of the EO.

4) Because of the above a TRO was justified.


Now, #2 does imply that the EO might be found to be unconstitutional however the decision did not make that determination.



Wouldn't a judge need to rule the law unconstitutional the send it to the SCOTUS.
No. The Government can now appeal the TRO to the Supreme Court.

Regarding the law in question. The Government maintained that it means that the presidential action is not subject to judicial review. Neither the judge nor the appeals court agreed.



1) What standing do the states have?

2) What harm?

3) Again, what harm have they suffered? Need proof of "irreparable harm" before anyone gets any standing.

My question is, what jurisdiction does the court have to crusade for non citizens not in the country and trump national security?

Whether they disagree for whatever the reason or not, the law is the law.








posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So, you didn't read Robart's decision. You didn't read the appeals court decision.

Rather than argue with the decision, you ask how they were arrived at.

Way to be informed.
edit on 2/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

They are questioning the need for this at all.
Trump has issued this order under the claim of an immediate threat to the US from these seven countries.
Now he has to put his money where his mouth is and show the need for this emergency action.
Since there is no history of terrorist activity within the USA from any countries on the list he's got a tall order to fill.



I don't care if he pulled the list of countries out of his ass.

It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.

Suck it up judge.




posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy




It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.

Constitutional, not so much. But there is Congressional action which says so.

It is the constitutional duty of the courts to review those impositions.

edit on 2/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So, you didn't read Robart's decision. You didn't read the appeals court decision.

Rather than argue with the decision, you ask how they were arrived at.

Way to be informed.




The decision was wrong, OK? Nothing to argue about. lol.

They were nothing but personal opinions/feelings not grounded in law.

Robarts has a conflict of interest, he does pro bono work for refugees, no?

The EO is constitutional. Everyone seems to forget that.




posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy




They were nothing but personal opinions/feelings not grounded in law.
False.


Robarts has a conflict of interest, he does pro bono work for refugees, no?
If he were being paid, you might have an argument.


The EO is constitutional. Everyone seems to forget that.
You don't seem to be aware that neither Robart or the appeals court ruled on that.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy




It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.

Constitutional, not so much. But there is Congressional action which says so.

It is the constitutional duty of the courts to review those impositions.



Again, what "imposition"?

The grounds for imposition is with national security.

It trumps some foreign student who went back for a "vacation" to Somalia for 3 months.




posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy




It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.

Constitutional, not so much. But there is Congressional action which says so.

It is the constitutional duty of the courts to review those impositions.



Again, what "imposition"?





These ones:

It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.

What do you think impose means? Do you think the word imposition is related?

edit on 2/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy




They were nothing but personal opinions/feelings not grounded in law.
False.


Robarts has a conflict of interest, he does pro bono work for refugees, no?
If he were being paid, you might have an argument.


The EO is constitutional. Everyone seems to forget that.
You don't seem to be aware that neither Robart or the appeals court ruled on that.



Maybe

We don't know who gets what, I'm sure it all doesn't come out of his pocket.

Hey, they can claim anything they want. Doesn't make it so.

It could be frivolous just to obstruct.






posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yeah. My uncle could really be my aunt.

What's your point?



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy




It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.

Constitutional, not so much. But there is Congressional action which says so.

It is the constitutional duty of the courts to review those impositions.



Again, what "imposition"?





These ones:

It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.

What do you think impose means? Do you think the word imposition is related?





imposition ɪmpəˈzɪʃ(ə)n/Submit noun

1. the action or process of imposing something or of being imposed. "the imposition of martial law" synonyms: imposing, foisting, forcing, inflicting, obtruding, pressing More


2. a thing that is imposed, in particular an unfair or unwelcome demand or burden. "I'd like to see you, if that wouldn't be too much of an imposition" synonyms: burden, load, onus, encumbrance, strain, demand, pressure, charge, bother, worry; informalhassle "it would be no imposition, I assure you"



lol, I was referring to #2

That kind of "imposition".




posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yeah. My uncle could really be my aunt.

What's your point?



True, he could. Have you checked?

They don't have the best record for siding with the law.





posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy
But you didn't say imposition. You said :



It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.


I applied #1 to what you said. It seems quite appropriate.

edit on 2/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy




They don't have the best record for siding with the law.

Confirmation bias?
Court Decisions

edit on 2/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Is it really the courts place to find cause? It is clear, in the constitution, that this decision has been given to the POTUS in a way that protects the thing from politics. Most of us have probably never though about the politics of immigration......as a political weapon.......much power given to POTUS to curtail attempts to take the deck. I understand that libs don't want to give the founders and founders by consent, to see how this immigration thing could become an act of war domestic.......you know.....aside from the feel good propaganda we can get from protecting insurgents from immigrating onto american soil.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


Is it really the courts place to find cause?
Yes.


It is clear, in the constitution, that this decision has been given to the POTUS in a way that protects the thing from politics.
It is clear, in the Constitution, that the court has the power to review the actions of both the executive and legislative branches of the government. Am I wrong?

Where in the Constitution is it said that the president can stamp his foot and say "Because I said so!" and that's the end of it.

edit on 2/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy
But you didn't say imposition. You said :



It's his constitutional right as POTUS to impose bans or delays.


I applied #1 to what you said. It seems quite appropriate.



Yes you did but it doesn't make sense, impose and #1 imposition is the same thing.

They claim the imposed ban put an imposition on people.






posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well wherever it starts this should be kicked up to the SC.

At any rate Trump has just scratched the thing. We have had under Dem and Rep administrations, over the last 24 years, some wide open immigrations policy that looks more like an employment and travel agency.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Logarock


Is it really the courts place to find cause?
Yes.


It is clear, in the constitution, that this decision has been given to the POTUS in a way that protects the thing from politics.
It is clear, in the Constitution, that the court has the power to review the actions of both the executive and legislative branches of the government. Am I wrong?

Where in the Constitution is it said that the president can stamp his foot and say "Because I said so!" and that's the end of it.


First you need to establish standing to proceed with a review.




new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join