Started By
Message

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

Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:03 am to
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35308 posts
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:03 am to
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.
Posted by HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Member since Feb 2017
12458 posts
Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:15 am to
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
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram