- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Any lawyers? What would stop Trump for writing another EO which
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:20 pm
Would be slightly different and rolled out differently, thus not being unconstitutional? Is that even possible? Just wondering why Trump doesn't just write another one that IS constitutional.
Disclaimer: I don't truly understand the legality in all of this, thus the questions.
Disclaimer: I don't truly understand the legality in all of this, thus the questions.
6
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:24 pm to Cali 4 LSU
Several threads on this. Some center on Trump's political interest in not doing so. Which is valid, whether you agree with making political "wins" a priority or not.
But curtailing the EO to avoid a TRO is probably more difficult than some are letting on. I don't think it's impossible, but Trump's statements as a candidate are a pretty big hurdle when you consider what the reasoning is going to be in the districts where this will be challenged.
But curtailing the EO to avoid a TRO is probably more difficult than some are letting on. I don't think it's impossible, but Trump's statements as a candidate are a pretty big hurdle when you consider what the reasoning is going to be in the districts where this will be challenged.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:26 pm to Cali 4 LSU
I think it would be wise to let the current order go the distance in federal adjudication before tipping one's hand on future plans.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:27 pm to Cali 4 LSU
To make it legal he would have to acknowledge Saudi Arabia is a threat and attacked the U.S.
But he won't include them.
But he won't include them.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:36 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
To make it legal he would have to acknowledge Saudi Arabia is a threat and attacked the U.S.
That is not the standard for denying visa holders. I've been agreeing with you on these subjects and your posts for the most part so far this evening. However, you lose me here on the standard the chief executive must apply in allowing visa holders into the country.
I'll give you a hint, it is the same standard applied to a Terry Stop.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:39 pm to Five0
A major reason for the eo being suspended was that it was implemented for national security but the nations that directly attacked the U.S. wasn't part of the ban.
Unless that part is reconciled this eo is doa.
Unless that part is reconciled this eo is doa.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:41 pm to Cali 4 LSU
His original EO isn't unconstitutional
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:41 pm to Cali 4 LSU
quote:
Just wondering why Trump doesn't just write another one that IS constitutional.
Because he's a based alpha non-cuck.
Quit asking questions.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:45 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
but the nations that directly attacked the U.S. wasn't part of the ban.
That is not relevant.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:46 pm to Cali 4 LSU
I think the real problem was that it wasn't explained clearly. The seven countries involved are close to being lawless. They don't comply with international standards for passport/Visa applications. The purpose of the EO is to force them to be properly vetted.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:51 pm to LSUwag
Iran has a strong and stable government with well defined visa standards.
Pakistan and Egypt not so much.
Pakistan and Egypt not so much.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:55 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Iran has a strong and stable government with well defined visa standards.
I'm not so sure Iran is all that "stable" given their defiance in firing missiles. They certainly aren't trust-worthy.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:55 pm to mahdragonz
Iran is also in violation of UN resolutions and is test firing rockets.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:57 pm to Loserman
Not yet. All that they ruled is that the administration will likely lose the case. The opinion was not controversial in its discussion. The only radical things were Trump's arguments that he has unlimited power, beyond the review of the courts. That's some crazy shite there.
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:57 pm to Loserman
quote:
His original EO isn't unconstitutional
Well I agree but isn't that what all the uproar is about? That it violates constitutional rights?
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:58 pm to Cali 4 LSU
quote:
I'm not so sure Iran is all that "stable" given their defiance in firing missiles. They certainly aren't trust-worthy.
A government that patently ignores a resolution knowing nothing will happen now that the U.S. has a weak leader seems like it has a very strong government.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:01 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
A government that patently ignores a resolution knowing nothing will happen now that the U.S. has a weak leader seems like it has a very strong government.
First of all, strong =/= stable or trustworthy.
Secondly, I know what you mean, Iran dumped all over that nuclear deal knowing Obama would do absolutely nothing! As a matter of fact, he PAID them!!!
What a weak dunce!Posted on 2/9/17 at 11:47 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Iran has a strong and stable government with well defined visa standards.
May I introduce a little thing I call bias.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News