1) Not exactly correct. The only thing the President must show is that there is a rational basis that people from the countries that are banned could pose a threat to national security, which he does and the EO shows since the nations listed in the ban are identified in an anti terrorism law signed by Obama.
2) Non citizens have no constitutional guarantees. If they did we would not be a sovereign nation.
3)The dissenting opinion is based on the Constitution , the Law and case precedent. The stay on the ban is not.
4) Snopes is irrelevant and hardly an authority on the matter or an authority on truth. Loosing a case at the 9th circuit is almost a guaranteed win at the Supreme Court.
5)Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 19 2017, 06:21 PM

Correct is correct And regarding the ninth circuit, more than 99% of the ninth circuit court's decisions stand.

Please try to refrain from foul language if possible. You can simply type B.S. and we get it The forums are family friendly places so let's all use a bit of restraint, shall well?

On to the topic at hand. Rammikin sorted it out better than I could have so I"ll just go with what he said

Todd

The idea that a President would basically have to get the ok from judges to implement an executive order concerning national security is ludicrous. And so is the idea that a president would have to explain to any judge the rational behind an EO that pertains to national security or share information that may be secret so that a panel of judges can second guess the President. Are a panel of unelected judges really supposed to be the final say on anything a President can do? Of course not. No, this is judicial tyranny and these judges have overstepped pure and simple. Trump could actually ignore the courts ruling if he saw fit. Would it have been better if the EO would have put on hold any and all immigration until further notice?
It's crap like this that is going to assure that Trump wins a second term as President.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 20 2017, 03:49 PM

The president does not need to get an ok from judges to implement an immigration EO concerning national security, as the ninth circuit court clearly said.

But who is the final arbiter on whether an action is truly in defense of national security? In our government, that authority resides with the courts. What you call "second guessing", others might call "constitutional democracy" .

If that is what the court said then there would be no hold on the EO. If what you say is true then why do we need a President or Congress for that matter. The judges could just go ahead and act as Executive, Legislative and Judicial and run the whole show.
The judges aren't the check and balance here. If the actions of the President are somehow illegal or unconstitutional the check and balance lies with Congress and the impeachment process and not with the 9th circus.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 20 2017, 04:15 PM

Anyone with standing can challenge the executive or congress in the courts. That's the basis of the checks and balances system we use to prevent the president or legislature from acting beyond the bounds of the constitution.

But I think I know you well enough to know you're well aware of that. I think what it comes down to is: the court has the authority to rule as it did, but you don't like the decision. Judicial decisions rarely make everybody happy .

The bottom line is: this should have been a simple EO that stood up in court, but it was poorly crafted and incompetently defended by the administration, so it was hardly surprising the court ruled the way it did. Anybody who doesn't like the ruling should be directing their ire at the administration for mishandling this issue. The fact the original case wasn't appealed to the supreme court shows the administration knows full well the fault lies with them for screwing this up.

That's what I'd call it But the healthy debate on what is and isn't constitutional democracy is, imho, a good thing. It's the constant push / pull of these decisions and the response that define our democracy. As Rammikin said, it's up to the courts. If any of these get to the supreme court i'd be surprised. As RAMMIKIN mentioned mentioned, the Trump admin know full well this EO was pooooorly crafted and badly executed. They only did it to throw red meat to the base. So they could say, "we did what we said we'd do, and the courts stood in our way" so they have someone to blame That's politics.

But the good news for trump is that he pushed through his hyper conservative new Supreme Court Justice. So the overall balance is still leaning hard right IMHO. But the voting public is fickle, so I'd bet dimes to dollars that the next election swings wide back the other way. But time will tell




This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Apr 20 2017, 11:47 PM

Normally and in many cases that would be correct. Just not in this case. The Presidents powers here are well established. The court in fact does not have the authority to rule as it did.

“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.” (8 USC 1182(f)).

“Accordingly, when this policy [of open immigration] changed and the political and lawmaking branch of this Government, the Congress, decided to restrict the right of immigration about seventy years ago [1882], this Court, thereupon and ever since, has recognized that the determination of a selective and exclusionary immigration policy was for the Congress, and not for the Judiciary. The conditions for entry of every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).

"In the decades after the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court took a leading role in determining how the immigration power would be allocated between the three branches of Government. In the end, the Court gave “plenary power”—absolute power—over immigration to Congress and the Executive, in a judicially-created doctrine known as the “plenary power” doctrine. Although this concept is found nowhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Congress had the power to make immigration laws that were discriminatory and otherwise unfair."

"In later years, the Court has also allowed Congress to delegate its immigration authority to the Executive Branch. Congress has now given away much of its plenary power over immigration to the Executive in sweeping grants of power—more sweeping grants than in any other area of the law. For example, Congress has delegated the power to the Executive Branch to determine whether the United States is at war such that military members can be naturalized; to determine whether foreigners should be granted temporary protected status; to determine whether a person is allowed to work in the United States; to grant a person permission to be in the U.S. when the person does not qualify for a visa; and to decide whether a person’s deportation should be deferred."

http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/immigra...ation-of-powers

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/plenary/


Stay tuned for that appeal. If it had been appealed earlier, it could have resulted in a tie in which case the lower courts decision would stand.


How far out in left field do you have to be standing to say that Gorsuch is hyper conservative? He is simply conservative, an originalist or constitutionalist, and does not in any way, shape or form resemble the far right. The way things are going now I would surely take your bet.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 21 2017, 04:32 PM

The court absolutely has authority. Denying that is tantamount to denying the constitution! A judiciary which lacks such authority is a characteristic you find in dictatorships. Further, in their decision, the court clearly acknowledged the president's powers regarding immigration bans when national security is an issue. By saying the court's authority is at issue and citing the administration's powers in this area you are ignoring the issues on which the case hinged, and you are setting up a strawman and arguing with nobody but yourself .

You have your opinion and I have mine but you seem to be ignoring the information concerning the law and case precedent I have provided that clearly backs up what I have said. And btw the judges that truly acknowledged the president's powers regarding immigration bans when national security is an issue were the dissenting judges.

Heaven forbid someone from one of these countries commits an act of terrorism in this country after they were allowed into the country because of this decision by the 9th circuit. If it does happen, those judges may need to go into hiding because there are going to be a lot of folks who will be calling for their heads to roll, so to speak.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 21 2017, 05:57 PM

Still, healthy debate among voters remains a positive thing IMHO. After all, we can't change anything at all that's been done so far. The judges are on the bench and the President is in the white house. We can go back and forth all day long about who's got what authority and use various bits to back up our thoughts. But it's similar to arguing bits of scripture. There are bits to support or negate just about anything depending on your point of view. In the end, what we have in this thread is just concerned voters, voicing their thoughts.

For example, I called the new supreme court justice "Hyper Conservative". Which is how he comes off to me. Then again AKRICH comes off to me as "Hyper Conservative" as well, although I'm sure he doesn't see himself that way. He probably sees me to the left of Stalin and Mao

Todd

See this is the problem and a big part of the reason democrats have been loosing so big going back to the midterm elections of Obama's first term. They have done all they could to define anyone or any view that is simply conservative as somehow being a far right boogeyman, or that conservatives hate clean air and water, or women and old people and anyone who wasn't born in this country. It goes on and on and on. Another part of the problem is that there are some republicans who are not really conservative at all have allowed the left to define conservatives in this way. I for one will not let any statement slide that seeks to demonize conservatives in this way and I think most people have grown tired of hearing these things from the left.
No Todd, Hillsdale college is not faaar right and neither is Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, and Gorsuch is in no way hyper conservative nor are his views and judicial opinions extreme in any way. The only way that I see that anyone could define a simple conservative view as being far right or hyper conservative is because of how far left they themselves are standing.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 23 2017, 04:30 PM

I re read my post and I did not infact call you the boogeyman (Mesa or otherwise) Nor did I intimate in any way that you were the boogeyman. This is something that you just sorta made up based on your own perceptions. I can't help you with that. Your perceptions are yours as are your thoughts, so if you think I"m calling you the Bman, all I can do is try to point out that I, in fact, didn't and was not trying to do so If I were, it would look like this "RICH YOU ARE THE BOOGEYMAN!!"

As to why dems lost sooooooo very badly in the last series of elections, everyone has their own view on that as well. My view on it is shaped by pew research polls and if the dems had paid a little closer attention to the frustration and discontent of voters in general, we may have had a different outcome, But again, that's just another view

I gotta say, we have very different definitions of what "FAR RIGHT" is. That much is clear. I would say RUSH LIMBAUGH is about as far right as you can get without being "Alt Right". But again, that's how I see him. You, being FAAAAAAR more conservative than I view him entirely differently. That just makes standard sense. You would view him differently. Of course you would. As you would view Trump and his ilk differently. Truer words could not be spoken.

However, as there is no single hard and fast litmus test on the sliding scale of left/right, it's down to our own views. Which is fine You are welcome to think of Rush Limbaugh in any terms you like. As as am I. I've heard him speak. I've rarely heard anyone I'd say is more Far Right wing. But again, just me Speaking my thoughts. and you speaking yours "he's not far right". We will have to agree to disagree on that and much else. But hopefully can do so in a spirit of civility.

As for "demonizing", I didn't do any of that either. But again, your perspective is your own. You have every right to it. Perhaps you think I am demonizing folks. You are welcome to think that as well. Again, hopefully we are all just concerned voters. Talking about democracy.

I"m glad that we have the ability to talk about politics. Thank God we are not in a full on Dictatorial state, yet. Hopefully we won't be, anytime soon. Once debate and dissent are seen to be a "real and present danger", we may become concerned over expressing our thoughts. Or even having expressed them at one time. For now, we still can, and I"m thankful for that

Todd




This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Apr 24 2017, 01:58 AM

Now re-read my post. Was I talking about you? Are you a Democrat? No, I was clearly speaking of Democrats and more specifically, Democrat politicians. I was using your statement about Gorsuch being a hyper conservative and some of your past comments about other people and organizations being far right as an example, as well as other examples from Democrats to illustrate a point. And I never said this was THE reason for the Democrats loss of seats across the board on a state and federal level. I said it was a BIG PART of the reason.
Not only did Democrats not pay attention, they have largely abandoned the middle class in recent years and have turned around and attacked them.

But please please, tell me what it is that you have heard Rush Limbaugh say that is so faaaaar right, or what Gorsuch said or did that makes him a hyper-conservative. What exactly is YOUR definition of far right or alt right for that matter since you toss around the terms so casually? Somehow I don't think it fits any standard definition of the term. And WTF does alt right even mean?

And concerning your last paragraph. Have you seen what is going on at Berkeley lately? It's not really a bastion of free speech anymore is it?

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 25 2017, 03:43 PM

Non citizens have a lot of 'constitutional' rights.
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+non+citi...-8&oe=utf-8
Being married to a non-citizen myself I can tell you that I'm pretty well versed in this.

Yes, made in haste, my statement was too broad. Sorry Ken.
Not all non-citizens have constitutional guarantees and not all non-citizens share the same constitutional guarantees as citizens.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 24 2017, 05:11 PM

You did mention that you personally have thoughts on why the dems lost. Those are of course, your personal thoughts. Frankly, I don't buy any of em as they are not based on any data. None that you have shared anyway. So theres that. You are welcome to think/say whatever. next!

As for Rush Limbaugh, My personal thoughts are that he is a far right wing wind bag, full of himself, and, full of crap. Avoiding any data that doesn't support his paranoid, whites only, Black presidents are bad, etc. Profile. I've known guys who LOVED him. All of them were hardcore, Rebel Flag in the truck Red Necks that worked in Construction and had no education to speak of. (I live in GEORGIA, the birthplace of the KKK, I"m surrounded by these folks, every day and I try to be as opposite as I can and still be proud to be a Southerner) I think this is the real problem. A lack of education results in being easily swayed by emotional banter. The kind of crap that Rush spews every day. Need examples? just take a chunk of any of his broadcasts. I can't listen long without becoming ill. Then there was the time he had his UNDOCUMENTED HOUSE CLEANER buying him DRUGS ON THE STREET. Talk about Hypocrisy. This is where folks usually throw a false equivalency in, instead of just admitting he is a total bag of wind and hypocrite. If you are a fan of his. I"m sorry. I can't stand him.

As I mentioned, it's a sliding scale without hard definitions in terms of far left or right. It's based largely on perceptual factors and who is the one making the statement. There's that.

If you don't know what Alt Right Means, I'm shocked. Steven Bannon called BREITBART the "VOICE OF THE ALT RIGHT" they are folks so far right that "far right" wasnt' good enough, so they call themselves "ALT RIGHT" they border on fascism and outright racism. Alt Right is a little more easy to define as it's a new creation. Here is a definition.

"The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization. Characterized by heavy use of social media and online memes, Alt-Righters eschew “establishment” conservatism, skew young, and embrace white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value."


They are a white identity bunch that are frankly just shameful imho in every way. But again that's just me. I'm sure we have a few here and they have every right to be as alt right as they want.

As for Berkley, I never said it was a bastion of free speech. Are you suggesting I did? If so, I didn't. I don't konw why you'd bring it up. Berkley is Berkley. I have nothing to do with them. Are you reaching for yet another false equivalency? Seems to be a pattern

Don't get so worked up. Seriously. It's just politics and we are just voters, . already voted, talking about. It is what it is at some point. But feel free to get overly worked up if that is your thing. You have every right to get as overworked as you like. It's still a free country, so far


[
quote name='AK Rich' date='Apr 24 2017, 10:17 AM' post='746958']
Now re- knread my post. Was I talking about you? Are you a Democrat? No, I was clearly speaking of Democrats and more specifically, Democrat politicians. I was using your statement about Gorsuch being a hyper conservative and some of your past comments about other people and organizations being far right as an example, as well as other examples from Democrats to illustrate a point. And I never said this was THE reason for the Democrats loss of seats across the board on a state and federal level. I said it was a BIG PART of the reason.
Not only did Democrats not pay attention, they have largely abandoned the middle class in recent years and have turned around and attacked them.

But please please, tell me what it is that you have heard Rush Limbaugh say that is so faaaaar right, or what Gorsuch said or did that makes him a hyper-conservative. What exactly is YOUR definition of far right or alt right for that matter since you toss around the terms so casually? Somehow I don't think it fits any standard definition of the term. And WTF does alt right even mean?

And concerning your last paragraph. Have you seen what is going on at Berkeley lately? It's not really a bastion of free speech anymore is it?
[/quote]

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Apr 26 2017, 03:23 AM

never brought forth your example as why, just assassinated character to try to end the argument . If rich is trying to understand what you view as alt' right , would not an example just clear things up ?
I'm glad no one on the left ever got hooked on prescription drugs . I thought he talked multiple doctors into overlapping prescriptions so I would like to see your " evidence " that he used an illegal worker

So to sum things up. You have nothing to show me that illustrates that Rush is faaaar right and alt right is just another term made up by the left to demonize conservatives since racist, homophobic and sexist etc etc have all been played out and just aren't as effective anymore. Thanks for clearing that up!