US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[yubba]

Originally Posted by vienna

This is what happens when you give guy a new toy and he doesn't read the manual:

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/03/...cutive-orders/





<O>

And yet you chose to remain mute,, when the last child chose to rip up the manual and tried to make a new one based on mob rule.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by vienna

This is what happens when you give guy a new toy and he doesn't read the manual:

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/03/...cutive-orders/

<O>

No, that is false. That journalist either does not know how the Constitution works and/or is making a political statement.

The President derives his power from the Consitution. A EO is just an expression of the President's power so one President cannot bind his successor with an EO. Trump is free to rescind and replace every EO ever put out by his predecessor and there is no formality involved.

[Bilge_Rat]

Now on the Legality of Trump's EO, it is true that the Courts are the ultimate arbitrer, but the Constitution has been around long enough and there have been enough judicial decisions to have a pretty good idea of what POTUS can and cannot do.

The Constitution grants to POTUS the executive power, he is commander of the armed forces, he has the duty to protect the USA. The Courts have determined that POTUS has nearly absolute jurisdiction on all matters outside of the USA and dealing with foreign govts, unless the Constitution specifically carves out that power to Congress, i.e. ratifying Treaties.

Under Obama, we saw an expansion of that power. Obama greatly expanded the Drone program which lead to the targeted killing of around 8,000 foreign nationals deemed by POTUS to be a threat to national security. Now, we know there were also many innocent civilians killed, men, women and children, from several hundreds or several thousands, depending on the source.

Obama also determined he had the power to kill U.S. citizens abroad which were deemed to be a security risk and he exercised that power a few time.

There was some grumbling in the Press over those actions, but no one seriously questioned that POTUS has very broad powers to act against what he perceives to be a security threat.

Obviously, if POTUS has the power to kill foreign nationals, he also has the power to stop them from entering U.S. territory as Courts have consistently ruled.

Now on the recent challenges, there are many grounds, but the only one that has a real shot is that it is a disguised "Muslim Ban" and therefore discrimination on religious grounds. Personally, I think it has very little chance of success, but let's game it out. Let's assume courts ultimately assume that the order is unconstitutional because it discriminates on religious grounds, what would that mean?

Basically, the Courts for the first time ever would be recognizing that foreign nationals have an inherent right to demand entry to the USA. There are an estimated 5 million Syrian refugees, let's assume all apply to enter the USA and all are refused. In theory, they could then apply to U.S. courts on the grounds that they are being refused entry on religious grounds, the onus would then be on the U.S. govt to show bona fide reasons why they are not being let in.

In effect, instead of the onus being on refugees/immigrants to show why they should be let in, the onus would shift to the U.S. government to show why they should be kept out. So the long term effect would be that the U.S. governement would lose control over the border.

Anti-Trumpers are so determined to stop whatever Trump is doing now, that they don't stop to think what the long term effect will be.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Under Obama, we saw an expansion of that power. Obama greatly expanded the Drone program which lead to the targeted killing of around 8,000 foreign nationals deemed by POTUS to be a threat to national security. Now, we know there were also many innocent civilians killed, men, women and children, from several hundreds or several thousands, depending on the source.

Obama also determined he had the power to kill U.S. citizens abroad which were deemed to be a security risk and he exercised that power a few time.

Yes, true. And yet, where were the protests and outcry from the left? Quiet as church mice.

I wouldlove to be a fly on the wall at the Trump HQ after the Washington federal judge put out that restraining order. I bet the Sacred One is having a meltdown Would not surprise me if Trump hits back with some kind of order to the FAA shutting down all flights from the terrorist-rich countries on his list.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I wouldlove to be a fly on the wall at the Trump HQ after the Washington federal judge put out that restraining order. I bet the Sacred One is having a meltdown

You don't need to be a fly on the wall, just look at his twitter feed!

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by vienna

The main problem there is that Trump's own AG pick, Sessions, was very likely to have been approved and passed on the day following the firing; once Trump acted and fired Yates, he stirred up even more opposition, needlessly, and here we are, four days later and no confirmation and there appears there will be an even longer wait: the mutiny of GOP Senators over the nomination of Betsy DeVos to Trump's cabinet means the GOP will have to hold off Sessions' final confirmation because the GOP desperately needs his vote in the Senate to even have a chance of confirming DeVos:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...racker/510527/

Strategically, if Trump had just ignored Yates, Sessions could have taken the AG office the next day and Yates would have faded by the next news cycle; instead, Trump gave his opponents further ammo and gave a greater coalescence to the Left, creating greater possible future headaches further down the line, including giving the Left one more talking point in the arguments leading up to the 2018 Mid-Terms...

So, if Trump had ignored Yates, Sessions would have coasted into the AG slot and it would, indeed, have been a one-day story; instead, Trump acted predictably, and foolishly, and turned a "footnote story" into a rallying point. The logic and benefit of doing nothing was so simple it is surprising none of his advisers pointed out to Trump; or perhaps, they did and Trump the Truculent again thought he knew more than anyone else and again shot himself in the keister...




The legality and/or Constitutionality of the ban was not affirmatively adjudicated and, given the several injunctions issued on the matter since the ban was initiated, including the most recent nationwide injunction issued by a Federal Judge appointed to his bench by GW Bush, the matter was never really very clear in the first place, so Yates' reluctance to enforce the ban will be seen as being not beyond the pale and really perfectly reasonable and gives further fodder for Trump's opponents; whether Yates was correct or not still has to be adjudicated in the courts of law and the US is above all, a nation built on respect for the law, not the whims of whoever sits in the Oval Office, of any party...

And as far as Nixon's actions are concerned, he, too, held that his demand to fire Cox was lawful and Constitutional and, IIRC, he and his cronies tried very hard to make a legal and Constitutional case for the firing demand, but then as now, the courts, not the President or Congress, decides what is or is not properly Constitutional and that fact can be found in, of all places, The Constitution...



<O>

As reasonable as it may have seemed to you that Yates lack of action and defience should have just been ignored. Her job was in the executive branch of government her boss is the president. Her purpose was to serve the executive branch, to give advice and enforce the policy of the federal government. Sessions appointment, mid-terms, or what political rags and hacks might say down the road doesn't have jack squat do with what happens to her. Yates's defience, taking matters into her own hands and not doing her job should be much more concerning to everyone than anything else at hand. The checks and balances in place to prevent her from doing what she did again was to fire her on the spot, and rightfully so.

Now if she would have done her job she could have watched the process unfold as it should. Federal judges in the lower courts giving their opinion on the matter. That is how the ball gets rolling for this issue to go to before the SCOTUS to look at the legalities of the immigrtion ban.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Oberon

You don't need to be a fly on the wall, just look at his twitter feed!

Where? I don't do Twitter, I only learn about that on news sites.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Where? I don't do Twitter, I only learn about that on news sites.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
More
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by vienna

By the above, neither the POTUS nor Congress are the final arbiters of Constitutionality and neither is any action taken by them automatically legal or Constitutional until the courts, ultimately the SCOTUS, have adjudicated the action. Trump's ban was not automatically legal and/or Constitutional and was properly questioned by the Acting-AG in her role as head of the Justice Department; doing so was just part of her job; neither the AG or any other Cabinet member is required by law or the Constitution to merely be 'rubber stamps' for the POTUS, and have been viewed as advisers and counsel to the President and are expected to give honest opinions, even if POTUS may not like what they are hearing; above all else, loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law supersede any sort of loyalty to whoever sits in the Oval Office...

Again, Steve, sorry for the confusion...

I beg to differ, AG's job is to decide if a reasonable argument can be made to defend the president's actions (in this case an EO), and then to present that argument in court. It's not the AG's job to determine what's legal and what isn't, that decision is reserved for Judges. If the AG feels they can't make a cogent argument, they need to resign.

What kind of mess do you think would ensue if every attorney tasked with upholding the laws followed Yates' example, and chose which laws they would uphold based on personal feelings?

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Yes, true. And yet, where were the protests and outcry from the left? Quiet as church mice.

I wouldlove to be a fly on the wall at the Trump HQ after the Washington federal judge put out that restraining order. I bet the Sacred One is having a meltdown Would not surprise me if Trump hits back with some kind of order to the FAA shutting down all flights from the terrorist-rich countries on his list.

Looks like someone went judge shopping. If this makes it to the Supreme Court through the 9th circuit there's an 80% chance the Supreme Court will overturn it.

[Bilge_Rat]

someone really has to tear Trump's phone away from him. Calling a judge a "so called judge" is getting close to contempt of court, the last thing Trump needs.

No matter how we may feel, the judge is only doing his job. At the " temporary stay" stage, the legal standard is totally diferent, plaintiff only has to show the order may cause immediate harm to individuals (which it does)and that the action has a reasonable chance to succeed at trial (which it may, slim, but possible).

It is relatively easy to get a temporary stay, but also easy to overturn. A judge in Boston issued a temporary stay last weekend, but last night another judge looking at the merits of the action lifted the stay once he determined the EO was legal and the plaintiffs had no reasonable chance to succeed at trial.

The EO is headed to the Supreme Court one way or another.

[Takeda Shingen]

Just want to take a moment aside from the armchair constitutional lawyering and demonization to stand in solidarity with the victims of the Bowling Green Massacre. May their names never be forgotten.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

The EO is headed to the Supreme Court one way or another.

Before or after Gorsuch takes his seat on the court?

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Just want to take a moment aside from the armchair constitutional lawyering and demonization to stand in solidarity with the victims of the Bowling Green Massacre. May their names never be forgotten.

Hmmm, that must have happened in one of Obamas extra seven states.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Just want to take a moment aside from the armchair constitutional lawyering and demonization to stand in solidarity with the victims of the Bowling Green Massacre. May their names never be forgotten.

May Frederick Douglasses sing them to thy sleep.