re: Another Obama appointee blocks Trump Travel ban.. same language as 1st judge

What's the quickest that the new SCOTUS justice can get approved?

If I were Trump I'd do the following

First, I'd compile a list of all the times over the last 40 years where a US President has temporary halted immigration from certain countries

Second, I'd have them as well as the statute giving the POTUS the legal authority to do printed on poster board

Then I would hold a press briefing where I announced the following with those posters as a back drop

A) I will ignore the stay and fire any government employee who doesn't cooperate with said order

B) let it be known that I'm tired of fricking around with childish liberal games and from now on there will be consequences, with the consequences of this childish attempt to usurp the authority of the POTUS resulting in my changing my mind about DACA and removing that program with instructions to ICE to prioritize removing people who were kind enough to let us know where we could find them to remove them as well as admitting that they are here illegally

This nonsense has to end

quote:

---

That's the most jarring thing to me. Like I said in the last thread, we've truly reached the point in the legal and intelligence communities where scoring points for your side is more important than national security and sovereignty. USUALLY, no matter how partisan sane folks are, they'll draw the line at the criteria.

---

Agreed. The partisanship exhibited in all levels of government now is not a good thing for this country. I expect to see Congressmen and such try to score political points...it's what they do.

But when federal agencies, courts, and the federal bureaucracy as a whole starts doing it...we've gone down a rather bad path.

progressive "logic"

"perfectly acceptable for cities and states to ignore federal law and be "sanctuary cities" that is within their right"

"Even though the law says the POTUS has the authority to ban immigrants at his discretion, that doesn't count if it's Trump"

Seriously, it's a brain disorder.

quote:

---

progressive "logic"

"perfectly acceptable for cities and states to ignore federal law and be "sanctuary cities" that is within their right"

"Even though the law says the POTUS has the authority to ban immigrants at his discretion, that doesn't count if it's Trump"

Seriously, it's a brain disorder.

---

They really don't seem to have a legal standing against the ban now, BUT the fact that the president has the power to do something doesn't mean that the use of it Is legal, IF it is unconstitutional.

Again I don't see how that would apply here, but in general, the Constitution trumps any and all other legal authorities.

quote:

---

he wrote, “the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban.”

---

WHAT THE frick?

This judge should be hung. That's the most ignorant ruling I've ever seen.

quote:

---

the fact that the president has the power to do something doesn't mean that the use of it Is legal, IF it is unconstitutional.

---

This doesn't seem to make sense. THe president , by definition, can't have the authority to legally do something if it is unconstitutional. I realize that is a bit of a chicken/egg argument; but it is the truth. If the COTUS doesn't allow something, then Congress can't pass a law letting the POTUS do it.

And in fact , there actually ARE laws on the books which give the President almost unchecked authority that directly contradicts the COTUS. For example, by law the President can unilateraly order a wiretap on a US citizen who he , and he alone, feels is a dirct threat to the United States. Now , this would certainly seem to contradict the 4th Amendment of the United States, but the law exists.

Here's the law, for your edification

LINK

And further, if you actually read the law that gives POTUS the authority ban immigration you will find a few things

1. The law allows the President wide latitude in banning immigrants who he , and he alone, feels are detrimental to the US. Not only does the President NOT have to prove a real danger to US exists, he doesn't even have to claim a danger exists. He merely has to feel they are a detriment to the US.

2. The law actually disallows the us government or its agencies from being sued by local jurisdictions over these laws.

3. We have not been enforcing large portions of this law for shite over the last 30 + years.

LINK

quote:

---

Cruiserhog, to judge a law based on words not IN the actual law is a disgrace to the legal profession and opens up a terrible can of worms

---

They aren't even based on words trump actually said, just dishonest characterizations of things he said

quote:

---

This doesn't seem to make sense. THe president , by definition, can't have the authority to legally do something if it is unconstitutional

---

Of course. But I'm saying (and maybe we are making the same point), but one could have the legal authority to do something, but that legal authority is still constrained by the Constitution.

quote:

---

For example, by law the President can unilateraly order a wiretap on a US citizen who he , and he alone, feels is a dirct threat to the United States.

---

Doesn't this refute that?

quote:

---

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party

---

So how can he legally wiretap a citizen, when it explicitly states that they must have substantial likelihood that a citizen's communications aren't going to included? Obviously, he could lie about the likelihood, but that would be a violation of that.

quote:

---

And further, if you actually read the law that gives POTUS the authority ban immigration you will find a few things

---

I'm not arguing that he doesn't have the legal authority, and I'm not arguing that's it's unconstitutional.

I'm just saying that every legal authority is constrained by the Constitution, even when it's sole authority. Again, maybe we're on the same page, but when the initial ban was instituted, some people seem to think that a sole authority was somehow immune from the Constitution.