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.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MteWamp
Since law enforcement (and immigration too, actually) falls under the authority of the Executive branch, with what mechanism would the Judicial branch enforce such a ruling?
The US Constitution.
Regardless of the authority the Executive branch has, it does not have the power to subvert the constitutional protections we have.
The fact that some judges like to legislate from the bench doesn't automagically make rulings like this binding, and it in no way obligates the Executive branch to give rulings like this any weight whatsoever.
We've had activist judges trying to pull crap like this for way too long, and any judge that attempts to do so should be thrown out on their ass.
That's just empty platitudes that have been regurgitated many times over the years.
Disagree with a ruling...it's "activist judges legislating from the bench".
Blah blah.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MteWamp
Since law enforcement (and immigration too, actually) falls under the authority of the Executive branch, with what mechanism would the Judicial branch enforce such a ruling?
The US Constitution.
Regardless of the authority the Executive branch has, it does not have the power to subvert the constitutional protections we have.
The fact that some judges like to legislate from the bench doesn't automagically make rulings like this binding, and it in no way obligates the Executive branch to give rulings like this any weight whatsoever.
We've had activist judges trying to pull crap like this for way too long, and any judge that attempts to do so should be thrown out on their ass.
That's just empty platitudes that have been regurgitated many times over the years.
Disagree with a ruling...it's "activist judges legislating from the bench".
Blah blah.
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust
Oh look, another activist judge. It's amusing how their rulings almost ALWAYS get overturned after an appeal, this will be no different. DACA is an EO, not an actual law.
If Congress does not resolve the DACA issue by March 5th, what happens on March 6th? The cattle-cars start being loaded up for Mexico?
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.
Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.
It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.
Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.
It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.
How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.
To which protections are you referring to, specifically?
And the fact that you believe that it's "empty platitudes" doesn't negate the fact that it's the truth.
No one is taking their liberty. They are free to do whatever they want in their own country.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MteWamp
Since law enforcement (and immigration too, actually) falls under the authority of the Executive branch, with what mechanism would the Judicial branch enforce such a ruling?
The US Constitution.
Regardless of the authority the Executive branch has, it does not have the power to subvert the constitutional protections we have.
The fact that some judges like to legislate from the bench doesn't automagically make rulings like this binding, and it in no way obligates the Executive branch to give rulings like this any weight whatsoever.
We've had activist judges trying to pull crap like this for way too long, and any judge that attempts to do so should be thrown out on their ass.
That's just empty platitudes that have been regurgitated many times over the years.
Disagree with a ruling...it's "activist judges legislating from the bench".
Blah blah.
The EO isnt constitutional so they have no right to protection.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust
Oh look, another activist judge. It's amusing how their rulings almost ALWAYS get overturned after an appeal, this will be no different. DACA is an EO, not an actual law.
If Congress does not resolve the DACA issue by March 5th, what happens on March 6th? The cattle-cars start being loaded up for Mexico?
Democrats in congress would like you to believe that. It will remove the protection they have though, so if they do something illegal even if it's a minor offense they will probably face deportation.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.
Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.
It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.
How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.
originally posted by: wakeupstupid
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.
Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.
It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.
How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.
They don't need to go to court, part of DACA is agreeing that you have committed a crime by being here illegally. Due process is OVER.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.
Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.
It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.
How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.
That is why the Trump admin's push to end DACA has hit this road block. Processes within the courts have to take place, before it can continue.
What do you think ATS? Is it fair that "Dreamers" brought here as children, should be granted citizenship? What does the Federal judges rulings mean for the DACA Dreamers?
www.cnn.com...
This week, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke in Congress for eight hours straight about immigrant youth. She shared our stories and called for passage of the Dream Act.
Yet, while she was speaking, Democratic and Republican party leaders were writing a budget deal that would leave protections for immigrant youth out in exchange for dollars on other projects.
www.politico.com...
The concerns span multiple factions of the Democratic conference, and, combined with opposition from Republican immigration hard-liners, they could put passage of a DACA deal at risk.
It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: AnonymousCitizen
So the Judicial branch thinks it can force the Executive branch to not enforce federal immigration law.
Seems an odd interpretation of the Constitution to me.
It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.
How would that be subverted? They don't pick up illegals, throw them on a bus, and head to Mexico. They go to court first.
That is why the Trump admin's push to end DACA has hit this road block. Processes within the courts have to take place, before it can continue.
Yes, and once appealed and overturned, DACA will be dead forever. Which is good, it's up to congress to write laws regarding immigration, not a guy with a phone and a pen.
originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: introvert
It's not a matter of the Judicial branch forcing the Executive branch not to enforce law. I believe it's about the executive branch not having the power to subvert the individual right to due process.
Due Process? They are already proven to be illegal? What other process do you need?