quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


I am concerned if the order is overturned on Constitutional grounds, as I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree with you there, this is the judiciary taking the powers of the executive and the legislative branches as their own, a very bad precedent and one which may lead to civil war

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


I am concerned if the order is overturned on Constitutional grounds, as I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree with you there, this is the judiciary taking the powers of the executive and the legislative branches as their own, a very bad precedent and one which may lead to civil war

My concern is not as broad as yours. My concern is specifically in the area of potentially blocking our government (Both Executive and Legislative branches) from taking action against foreign individuals or governments, due to Constitutional protection applied to foreign nationals.)


"Sorry, you can't blow up that ISIS money stash, or provide air support to the Kurds. You are discriminating against radical Islamic Sunnis who are protected by our Constitution."

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
VISA folders and Green card holders have ZERO Constitutional rights, therefore the religious criteria is irrelevant (Unless a U.S. citizen (or entity)) is harmed)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Because the law that the president used is so crystal clear in giving him the authority that he exercised, if this precedent stands there is no law, no constitutional right, no power that rightfully belongs to the other branches that cannot be hijacked by some rogue ideologues who happen to be wearing black robes

So the fundamental question becomes, if black-robed tyrants declare themselves as kings, is it so? Of course not. But this is exactly what is happening first in Seattle, and now on the 9th Circus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Because the law that the president used is so crystal clear in giving him the authority that he exercised, if this precedent stands there is no law, no constitutional right, no power that rightfully belongs to the other branches that cannot be hijacked by some rogue ideologues who happen to be wearing black robes

So the fundamental question becomes, if black-robed tyrants declare themselves as kings, is it so? Of course not. But this is exactly what is happening first in Seattle, and now on the 9th Circus

The separation of powers clearly expects the legislative and judicial branches to act as part of the system of checks and balances on the exercise of power by the President.

The President is not a tyrant and cannot do whatever he wants. The Constitution of the United States is explicitly designed to prevent this. If 45 wants an outcome, he's going to have to do it the old-fashioned way - by allowing the people's representatives to vote on it. That's what Congress is for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Because the law that the president used is so crystal clear in giving him the authority that he exercised, if this precedent stands there is no law, no constitutional right, no power that rightfully belongs to the other branches that cannot be hijacked by some rogue ideologues who happen to be wearing black robes

So the fundamental question becomes, if black-robed tyrants declare themselves as kings, is it so? Of course not. But this is exactly what is happening first in Seattle, and now on the 9th Circus

The separation of powers clearly expects the legislative and judicial branches to act as part of the system of checks and balances on the exercise of power by the President.

The President is not a tyrant and cannot do whatever he wants. The Constitution of the United States is explicitly designed to prevent this. If 45 wants an outcome, he's going to have to do it the old-fashioned way - by allowing the people's representatives to vote on it. That's what Congress is for.

The question is the judiciary. The law is clear, but they take it on themselves to nullify it, which isn't theirs to do.

quote:

Court Ruling Against Trump’s Executive Order Shows the Worst of Judicial Activism

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has repeated the mistakes made by the district court judge who stayed President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending visas from seven terrorist havens.

Both the judge in Washington state and the San Francisco-based circuit court have now refused to recognize the authority of Congress and the president to make this national security decision.

Neither the judge in Washington state nor the court has offered anything approaching a detailed discussion of 8 U.SC. §1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Unless this statutory provision is unconstitutional, the president has acted completely within the law.

The 9th Circuit gives lip service to the fact that “courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence.”

Inexplicably, it then proceeds to give no deference to the president’s policy determination that a temporary suspension is necessary to ensure that adequate vetting procedures are in place.

The court also gives no deference to the decision of Congress to delegate its plenary power over immigration to the president on this issue.

The 9th Circuit also claims that there is “no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”

But as Washington Examiner journalist Byron York reports, that’s simply not true. In fact, there is plenty of this sort of evidence:

Last year, the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration and the national interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted—not just arrested, but convicted—of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.

And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.

Instead of discussing the relevant statute under which the president acted, the 9th Circuit instead engages in an extensive discussion of its concern that the executive branch is failing to provide due process to aliens barred from entry into the United States.

While it can certainly be argued that permanent resident aliens may have certain due process rights before their residency status can be canceled, the White House has already said the order does not apply to permanent residents.

The court’s apparent opinion that other aliens who don’t live in the U.S. have due process rights if they are refused entry can only be true if they have a constitutional right to enter the U.S.

That is an absurd proposition, yet that is the end result of the court’s opinion: that a foreign alien can demand a hearing and due process rights if one of our embassies refuses to give the alien a visa.

So far in the numerous lawsuits that have been filed against this executive order, the only federal judge to get it right is Nathaniel Gorton of the District Court of Massachusetts.

He analyzed the relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), and concluded that the executive order is fully within the president’s authority: “The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is ‘largely immune from judicial control.'”

Contrary to the 9th Circuit, Gorton says the executive order is “facially legitimate and bona fide.”

The 9th Circuit’s ruling has as little basis in the law as the original decision by the district court judge. It is just another example of arrogant federal courts grabbing power from the legislative and executive branches in violation of basic separation-of-powers principles.

After the decision was announced, Trump tweeted, “The security of our nation is at stake.” He is right.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/10/court-ruling-against-trumps-executive-order-shows-the-worst-of-judicial-activism/

quote:



The law that never was

The key point for everybody to know about the United States Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's opinion regarding President Donald Trump's executive order regarding immigration is that the three judges failed to discuss, or even acknowledge the existence of, the primary law that supports the E.O.

Title 8 United States Code, section 1182(f), which was enacted as section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is entitled "Suspension of Entry or Imposition of Restrictions by President" and states (italics added):

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, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13769, entitled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States." The executive order expressly cited 8 USC, sec. 1182(f) and quoted its language three times. Section 3(c) of the executive orders states (emphasis added):

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA,8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

Section 5(c) of the executive order states (emphasis added):

Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

Section 5(d) of the executive order states (emphasis added):

Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

President Trump further emphasized the importance of 8 USC section 1182(f) by reading it to the Major County Sheriffs' Association and Major Cities Chiefs Association in Washington, D.C. on February 8, 2017. President Trump told the crowd that "a bad high school student" would understand 8 USC section 1182(f).

The Ninth Circuit's opinion was in the case entitled State of Washington; State of Minnesota v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, and others, case no. 17-35105, decided February 9, 2017. The three judges who issued the unanimous opinion were William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland. These judges did not cite to, discuss, or quote from 8 USC, sec. 1182(f). They did not quote from those parts of the executive order that cited or quoted 8 USC, sec. 1182(f). If your knowledge about this case were restricted to what is in the opinion by these judges, you would not know that 8 USC, sec. 1182(f) exists. For these three judges, 8 USC, sec. 1182(f) is the law that never was.

All three of these judges were required to take the oath specified in 28 USC, sec. 453:

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: "I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Did judges Canby, Clifton, and Friedland each "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon" them "as judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States"? Their duty was to interpret and apply the law, specifically, 8 USC, sec. 1182(f). If they believe that the law does not apply here, they had a duty to explain why. If they believe that the law is unconstitutional, they had a duty to explain why. They violated their duty. They violated their oath.

If you had to make a list of things that a judge could do that warrants impeachment, deliberately ignoring an applicable law that contradicts the judge's opinion would be on the list.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/the_law_that_never_was.html#ixzz4YP3CyhaI
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Because:
1) the ban violates the Constitution, and

quote:

2) the administration can give no proof there's a dire emergency except in its own hysteria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
MJ01

quote:

Nevertheless, the President says it is a matter of National Security, and it only DIRECTLY impacts people who have ZERO Constitutional rights.

You are terribly misinformed. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection to persons. One does not have to be a citizen to gain this benefit.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A person having a green card or a visa is provided equal protection of our laws no matter where they may be physically, because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

quote:

Your quote from the paper is most certainly out of context of the paper as a whole. On balance, you are definitely on the wrong side of this.

quote:

Step back and think about it... Our founders most certainly did. The U.S. could not exist as a Sovereign nation, if it extended Constitutional protection to foreign nationals. Every action taken by our government against any foreign government OR individual could be a violation of some individual's Constitutional rights.