Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

a reply to: introvert

Wouldn't surprise me either. I gotta say though. Internet lawyers make me laugh. It's always so funny watching people pretend to know how the legal system works while saying things that blatantly prove they don't know what they are talking about.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Phage

and the 9th circuit refuses to acknowledge the constitution and supreme court ruling that makes foreign policy and national security directives unreviawable by the courts as its a direct violation of separation of powers.

Thank you.

Some sanity in the thread.

How many times in how many threads on the same subject does this have to be pointed out?

I guess forever?

blah.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter

As a matter of fact - the President of the United States is the *only* person with constitutional authority regarding determining who or who should not, be allowed to enter this country.

That's also false. Read the statute cited by another member and you will see that others have the ability to determine such things. Including the Secretary of State.

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

This is rather simple English. It is also a law. It is also the findings of the Supreme Court codified into law.

I understand that you don't understand that....

a reply to: GreyScale

She has no authority period in matters of immigration or national security.

She absolutely does have the authority to render her opinion/decision when she is presented with a legal case regarding the subject...whether it is upheld or struck-down by a higher court.

That is the system of checks and balances we have in place.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter

As a matter of fact - the President of the United States is the *only* person with constitutional authority regarding determining who or who should not, be allowed to enter this country.

That's also false. Read the statute cited by another member and you will see that others have the ability to determine such things. Including the Secretary of State.

"the President of the United States is the *only* person with constitutional authority"

Does that not sound very dictatorish?

Not when placed into proper context nope.

Explain

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Actually, I think this is a judge who knows the dangers of terrorism and sees the benefits of the EO.
She is giving the government a chance to provide some concrete evidence so that she can rule in their favor and shut everyone up.
She should not need to do this. The President and the DHS get security briefings, not the judges.
But, maybe she sees that the insanity is not going to stop unless she can make a strong, irrefutable ruling to reinstate the EO.

I hope my guy instinct is correct on this one.

It seems Mitch McConnell has already somehow talked the whole
twelve judge panel at the 9th to refrain from reviewing the
standard decision. This may be based in a couple of motives.

The first being another EO already in the works without the offensive
passages, or something that makes my brain hurt for a second. The
Trump administration and the GOP might want to take the Supremes
decision for a b-slap against the progressives so the original's vindicated.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlueAjah

She did ask for evidence, yes. Perhaps because, once again, the government didn't present any?

Oh, she also said this:

"There is strong evidence from the national security community that this order does not do what it purports to do," Brinkema said. "There is strong, colorful evidence for the motives of this order."

www.upi.com...

The judicial branch has no authority in matters of immigration and national security.

Simply because there needs to be a separation of powers.

The judicial branch has already ruled on this through the Supreme Court. More than once. The last in 1948. It is a law that I posted to you yesterday to read. Have you forgotten it since then?

I'm amazed that you started another thread on the same topic that you didn't seem to understand yesterday when we chatted.

Or perhaps you needed that thread to die so you could start another....

/facepalm

a reply to: GreyScale

You didn't read it, did you? Other individuals do have the right to make determinations other than the president.

(F) ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

www.uscis.gov...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Internet lawyers make me laugh. It's always so funny watching people pretend to know how the legal system works while saying things that blatantly prove they don't know what they are talking about.

And that's why I mostly ask questions in politics.

I know I don't know.

a reply to: GreyScale

Yeah, it says that.
Where does it say that the EO is unreviewable?
Where is it said that any EO, no matter what the scope, is unreviewable?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: GreyScale

She has no authority period in matters of immigration or national security.

She absolutely does have the authority to render her opinion/decision when she is presented with a legal case regarding the subject...whether it is upheld or struck-down by a higher court.

That is the system of checks and balances we have in place.

She absolutely does not because she's a judge and has no standing or authority in the matter.

This is pretty black and white according to the Supreme court rulings on the case.

It's irritating that you don't understand this....

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

This was the findings of the Supreme court the last time they had to rule on it. It was later codified into law by Congress.

The judge has no authority to weigh in on ANYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO A NON-CITIZEN.

I'm out of this thread because it's like talking to my cat... you just don't get it and it's so simple that I'm embarrassed for you.

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: Phage

I am searching now I thought I saw it on ATS. A blonde lady interviewing a white older guy with glasses saying the White house gave them this list. It baffled me as to why I asked what you took of it.

Ok well the ATS article is gone as to my history and the embedded video I can't find yet.

Is this what you are speaking to?

Yes why yes it is. That is what I was wondering what you OP made of.

a reply to: Annee

Yea. One thing I try to do is adhere to court decisions. I certainly don't know enough about law to make judgements over their decisions, and I really don't have the patience to understand a lot of legalize to get to that point. It takes 7 to 8 years of HARD schooling to become a lawyer. Reading a few legal memos, a news article on a court case, and some rulings on the internet doesn't make you an expert at law.

*** PDF *** 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012 ARIZONA ET AL.v. UNITED STATES

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had es-tablished a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.

Held:

1.The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immi-gration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to“establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and onits inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive
and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter
, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration status in formation to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting
, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be
inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to
preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they
stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines
v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8.

3.Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law. Pp. 8–19.(a) Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field inwhich Congress has left no room for States to regulate. In Hines, a
state alien-registration program was struck down on the ground that Congress intended its “complete” fe
deral registration plan to be a “single integrated and all-embracing system.” 312 U. S., at 74. That
scheme did not allow the States to “curtail or complement” federal law or “enforce additional
or auxiliary regulations.” Id., at 66–67. The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because
Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible. Pp. 8–11.(b)
Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), a comprehensive framework for “combating the employment of illegal aliens,”
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, 147, makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized workers, 8U. S. C. §§1324a(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), and requires employers to verify prospective employees’ employment authorization status.............

Interesting that the 9th recognized the federal governments / presidents absolute authority in this realm back in 2012.

originally posted by: GreyScale


This is rather simple English. It is also a law. It is also the findings of the Supreme Court codified into law.

I understand that you don't understand that....

Yes, but there are many other laws on the books. And there are laws at variance with other laws.

It's very complicated. The nation has been making new laws for over 200 years already.

Only someone trained in law can sort it all out. That's why you need judges to tell us what specific interpretation is currently the correct one.

*** PDF *** ZIVOTOFSKY,
BY HIS PARENTS AND GUARDIANS, ZIVOTOFSKY ET UX. v. KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

* - 2001 - The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives

The Executive's exclusive recognition power precludes judicial review in areas the constitution specifically appoints to the President, or where Congress enacts a law, and the law is correct form and lawful, doing the same. That power is referred to in the ruling above.

Political Question Doctrine

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe he should write his EOs so that they don't apply selectively...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, Law school is three years.

eta: Oh, I just realized you might have been including the four of undergrad, usually with a major in political science. So yes, those four included, plus the three for Law School is seven. Gotcha.

He didnt. His EO was lawful, constitutional and based on existing law. The 7 countries in question were placed into that designation category by Obama.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Except there are people on record including the President stating that it does indeed target Muslims.