- 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: Open Invitation: Explain How the Immigration EO is Unconstitutional
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:26 pm to AggieDub14
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:26 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
See you laugh, but the Executive branch of government is not meant to create laws. That is the job of congress.
Man, wish you were around in the 1930s when that fight actually mattered.
1
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:27 pm to therick711
quote:
I am not aware of any limit that has been applied to noncitizens/legal residents that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Got some precedent, counselor?
LINK
quote:
How does the Constitution apply to a non-citizen blocked from entering at JFK International Airport?
The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.
quote:
Cases extending back to the 1800s, including ones brought by Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.
quote:
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:27 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
but the Executive branch of government is not meant to create laws. That is the job of congress.
Congress cedes power to the executive to make regulations pursuant to statutory law
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
Dear SFP, people we detain are subject to our jurisdiction.
Wong Kim Ark dealt with legal permanent residents subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Neither of those examples fit my criteria. So, there isn't any precedent holding that. I rest my case.
Wong Kim Ark dealt with legal permanent residents subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Neither of those examples fit my criteria. So, there isn't any precedent holding that. I rest my case.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:29 pm to therick711
quote:
Man, wish you were around in the 1930s when that fight actually mattered.
regulatory power of the executive was established early on in the US, well before the 20th century
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
regulatory power of the executive was established early on in the US, well before the 20th century
No kidding, but the agency leviathan was a byproduct of the New Deal and has done more to undermine our Constitutional Republic than any number of Executive Orders.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:31 pm to therick711
if you're arguing that it can't be unconstitutional b/c it doesn't directly violate the rights of non-citizens, you're ignoring a large area of constitutional law related to the authority to write laws themselves. the issue you're looking fo is potentially standing (but if they're physically within the US, they have that)
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:31 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Where does the constitution grant the President the power to create laws?
It doesn't and Trump did not create a law. Next question?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:31 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
What is the legal argument here?
He's literally Hitler
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:31 pm to therick711
yeah but that's a Congressional issue, not a regulatory issue
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if you're arguing that it can't be unconstitutional b/c it doesn't directly violate the rights of non-citizens, you're ignoring a large area of constitutional law related to the authority to write laws themselves. the issue you're looking fo is potentially standing (but if they're physically within the US, they have that)
You can't violate the rights of persons who are not subject to your jurisdiction. You can, however, discriminate against them on any basis or no basis. They have no due process rights because they don't have ANY rights in the US.
You continue to talk about persons under our jurisdiction. That's a different case as I've said time and again.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
How does the exception for religious minorities create any sort of UnCon issue here.
Specifically?
Specifically?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:34 pm to lsu2006
quote:
No, but I'm saying I believe the strongest (albeit still weak) argument to be made is that Trump's actions under the statute are unconstitutional. I'm not convinced any part of the order is unconstitutional.
Ok, well if you are convinced that 1182(f) is constitutional and you are convinced that the EO is constitutional, then Trump has acted constitutionally, which is why I made this thread. Thanks.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:36 pm to therick711
quote:
You can't violate the rights of persons who are not subject to your jurisdiction.
then you're arguing a potential standing issue and not a constitutionality issue
you're asking how a case can be brought against an unconstitutional law if no person can bring that suit (as they're not within the US)
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:37 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
How does the exception for religious minorities create any sort of UnCon issue here.
Specifically?
IT CAN BE ARGUED that "minoity religion" gives a preference to Christianity
i don't think many zooroastrians or jew are living in these states anymore
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
then you're arguing a potential standing issue and not a constitutionality issue
Your harping on a distinction without a difference. They don't have standing because they don't have rights under the constitution (or statute or common law or regulation, etc.) I'm also not asking anything.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:39 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:Obviously we're talking a large groups of people, and probably all of them haven't been on US Soil so past performance isn't very valid anyways.
Past performance is not indicative of future results.
That being said, for an indivdual at least, the most reliable indicator of future performance is past performance.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:41 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
but the Executive branch of government is not meant to create laws. That is the job of congress.
Where have you been the past 16 years?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:42 pm to therick711
quote:This above my limited understanding, but isn't their constitutional rights, or lack thereof, essentially irrelevant to constitutionality of the law itself?
They don't have standing because they don't have rights under the constitution (or statute or common law or regulation, etc.) I'm also not asking anything.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:42 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
Hugo Stiglitz
I disagree with the vast majority of what you post. Like another thread said today, though, you are generally level-headed, informed, and present reasoned arguments. Compared to many of the idiots that come on here to poke the bear, I give you the benefit of the doubt. You're like the Robert Reich of the PT board. An idiot, but an honest idiot.
That being said, the Meryl Streep avi undermines all I just said. This is a brilliant actress, but also a woman that cheers a child rapist fugitive, denigrates someone who likes football as essentially the great unwashed, and pontificates about racism and equality from an industry with some of the largest income inequality in the country and that only nominated minorities for Oscars this year after two years of shaming for all white nominees. Her speech was one of the worst examples I have ever seen of an elitist limo-lib pandering to an echo chamber.
You want to lionize a celebrity as a liberal spokesperson? Do it with someone who does more than spout off at an easy audience. George Clooney, Bono, Angelina Jolie, and several others actually roll their sleeves up and do something about what they see. All I see Meryl doing is what she does on screen: saying words.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News