- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: 9th Circuit Fails To Cite Actual Law In Issuing Its 29 Page Ruling
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:31 am to uway
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:31 am to uway
quote:I agree that's different, and I don't think the EO is unconstitutional for the most part; however, some people seem to think that only citizens are protected by the Constitution. That doesn't make sense since the government must always abide by the Constitution.
but I don't see how that applies to simply barring entry.
1
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:33 am to buckeye_vol
The Constitution pretty explicitly makes some rights available to non-citizens, which I think some people strangely contest.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:39 am to sicboy
quote:
Didn't they say the White House failed to prove that there was an actual threat that required the travel ban of these specific countries?
My understanding is that the left's argument is that no evidence has been provided of an actual successful terror attack directly against the US from anyone from one of these countries.
So even though the President clearly has the legal authority to do this, he can only do it reactively and not proactively?? Wtf
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:41 am to ScoopAndScore
quote:
My understanding is that the left's argument is that no evidence has been provided of an actual successful terror attack directly against the US from anyone from one of these countries.
So even though the President clearly has the legal authority to do this, he can only do it reactively and not proactively?? Wtf
They are literally anti-American. That's wtf
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:42 am to ScoopAndScore
quote:
So even though the President clearly has the legal authority to do this, he can only do it reactively and not proactively?? Wtf
That's not really what happened. Remember this is a decision specific to a stay of a TRO.
The 9th Circuit did not rule that the President can't act proactively. The 9th Circuit put what I think is a high burden (absurdly high considering the low burden applied by the district court) on the government for a showing that the stay of the TRO was needed, but that doesn't mean the same standard is going to be used in assessing the merits of the case.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:49 am to uway
quote:As the lawyers here have pointed out (appealing to their authority), they weren't addressing that issue.
They are literally anti-American. That's wtf
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:54 am to Pettifogger
quote:
The Constitution pretty explicitly makes some rights available to non-citizens, which I think some people strangely contest.
Well, I don't think the Constitution is "explicit." For example, the V Amendment uses the term "person." Does this mean anyone on the planet, or U.S. citizens, or anyone in the U.S., or something else? Some courts have concluded that Constitutional rights extend to any person within the U.S., whether a citizen or not. These rights also clearly extend to citizens while outside the U.S. I am not aware of any decision extending Constitutional protections to non-citizens while outside the U.S. (I'm not saying there aren't any - I'm just not doing the research).
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:59 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
No but when constitutional rights are allegedly being violated
What constitutional rights do foreigners in other countries have
I'll wait
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:00 am to monsterballads
quote:All and none.
What constitutional rights do foreigners in other countries have
I'll wait
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:01 am to Putty
Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment is what I'd refer to as "pretty explicit" for non-citizens in the United States.
As to the second remark, Boumediene and the line of cases that preceded it are getting us closer to that line.
As to the second remark, Boumediene and the line of cases that preceded it are getting us closer to that line.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:03 am to monsterballads
Boumediene held that a Bosnian (I think?) citizen in Cuba had the right to a habeas petition in U.S. courts.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:07 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
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
The law clearly states that it's entirely up to the president to determine if a class is detrimental to the U.S. The only way the courts would have the authority to overturn this is to find that it violates the 1st amendment. The courts have overstepped.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:08 am to Undertow
quote:
The only way the courts would have the authority to overturn this is to find that it violates the 1st amendment.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:09 am to Undertow
quote:Why would the first amendment be the only applicable basis?
The only way the courts would have the authority to overturn this is to find that it violates the 1st amendment.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:15 am to buckeye_vol
Maybe there's other amendments too. The point is they would have to find it unconstitutional. But according to the law the president can make a judgement to keep people out. It doesn't say that his judgement has to be sound or that he even has to say how he made the determination. The constitutionality is the only basis in which it can be struck down.
What the court did is substitute their judgement for his, saying he failed to prove these people were detrimental to the U.S. Well, he doesn't have a burden to prove that.
What the court did is substitute their judgement for his, saying he failed to prove these people were detrimental to the U.S. Well, he doesn't have a burden to prove that.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 10:19 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:18 am to sicboy
quote:
So there should be no checks in place for any decision he makes?
No.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:18 am to AUbused
quote:It did. And in that regard it appears the court was unfamiliar with the order, disregarded Homeland Security attestation as to dispositive intent in those cases, or both. Because application of the EO does not violate employment of appropriate due process.
the courts opinion focused largely on due process for Visa, green card
Regardless, given the law, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:19 am to Undertow
And this EO has not actually been struck down. This is ONLY about the TRO.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:20 am to Undertow
quote:I'm pretty sure that due process is referenced at least a couple places in the Constitution, hombre
Maybe there's other amendments too. The point is they would have to find it unconstitutional. But according to the law the president can make a judgement to keep people out. It doesn't say that his judgement has to be sound or that he even has to say how he made the determination. The constitutionality is the only basis in which it can be struck down.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:22 am to Hog on the Hill
ok. How does due process apply here?
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News