Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[oldbadger]

"ex-President Obama"

Since you are in England we'll over look it this time. . . . But the proper title, in a formal setting, is Former President Obama, or Mr.Obama. In an informal setting you can still refer to him as President Obama (as long as it is clear you are not talking about the current President), Obama, Mr. Obama, or Former President Obama.

*Disclaimer - I don't really care what you call him.

"despise ex-President Obama"

The truth is many people approved of Obama, myself included, but generally the side of hate is the louder of the two.

Obama's approval rating soars as he exits the White House

Your pedantry about titles to a foreigner and your obvious ignorance about my respect for him is crystal clear in your post.

Is your ability in the subject of comprehension so weak?
I admired him, but to call him ex-President is hardly an insult.........

You're funny....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

I think you're confused:

- I said "U.S. Constitution", not "U.S. Code."
- a link with no comment is not an explanation.

 

[Underhill]

But the rub here is in the word "unconstitutional", without the court ruling one way or the other, as to the constitutionality of a given EO, the EO is in effect. Obama knew this, as a constitutional law professor, and was continually swatted down by the Supreme Court who did not go along with his reading of the law. In regards to the sacked AG, she may as well held a sign over her head reading, "FIRE ME, NOW!"

The reality is she was on the way out anyway most likely. But there is plenty of precedent for this behavior.

 

[Underhill]

It isn't so clear that Trump's order is illegal.
Opinions vary.

It is outside precedent. The only times, in the history of the country, when these kinds of bans were in place they were either a response to violence (the iran hostage crisis) or the result of war. (or are viewed as a low point in US history)

At the very least any sensible person can see her point.

 

[Underhill]

True, although it depends on whether it's truly illegal or not. Do foreign citizens have a Constitutional right to enter the United States? If a foreign citizen applies for a visa and is denied by a State Department employee, did that State Department employee break the law? Or is this something where Executive Branch employees have a certain amount of leeway and discretion that they can use?

It may be questionable. But if the SG believes it to be against the law she can choose not to follow what she deems an unlawful order. She has been sacked, but the court will have their say, and from what I have seen she is right. Even if it is not a true Muslim ban, it is obvious the intent was to ban as many muslims as pragmatic when you look at what Trump has said publicly and what has been leaked.

 

[4consideration]

That only addresses part of the issue. Governments can take measures to stop refugees landing on their soil, but if the refugees make it, they're protected against being expelled. As I understand it, the Executive Order would have required, say, that a Cuban refugee who lands on the shore of Key West be sent back to Cuba. That's one way in which the Executive Order would be illegal.

I've looked at the information you provided in response to me, and at the EO wording -- and have not been able to find wording in the EO, specifically, or implicitly, that suggests an intention or requirement, to expel Refugees without cause. Actually, I don't see reference to the expulsion of refugees that have already arrived at all.

From what I see, it seems there is wording allowing for exception of certain provisions regarding entry that would apply to refugees that show up on our shores/doorstep -- providing the refugee is not posing a danger -- like a Cuban boat refugee, or similar type of re. (My highlighting.)

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

Sec.5 (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is outside precedent. The only times, in the history of the country, when these kinds of bans were in place they were either a response to violence (the iran hostage crisis) or the result of war. (or are viewed as a low point in US history)

At the very least any sensible person can see her point.

Unprecedented?
You just cited a precedent where a country endured a ban because of violence committed against us.
The only difference is the number of affected countries.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Your pedantry about titles to a foreigner and your obvious ignorance about my respect for him is crystal clear in your post.

Is your ability in the subject of comprehension so weak?
I admired him, but to call him ex-President is hardly an insult.........

You're funny....

"your obvious ignorance about my respect for him"

Ya, I am sorry but my transcontinental mind reading device is currently out of whack.

"Is your ability in the subject of comprehension so weak?"

So weak that it makes Einstein look like an idiot? Why yes it is and thank you for asking.

 

[Underhill]

Unprecedented?
You just cited a precedent where a country endured a ban because of violence committed against us.
The only difference is the number of affected countries.

And the fact that there was no specific violence against us. Even if you count arrest, these arrest aren't tied to the country but to an ideology that exist in some measure in virtually every country on the planet.

This is what makes the ban so useless. I could at least understand banning muslims if it were universal (not agree with it, but understand it). But the fact that many of the most violent terror prone parts of the middle east are not on the list undermines even that thin logic.

 

[Revoltingest]

And the fact that there was no specific violence against us. Even if you count arrest, these arrest aren't tied to the country but to an ideology that exist in some measure in virtually every country on the planet.

This is what makes the ban so useless. I could at least understand banning muslims if it were universal (not agree with it, but understand it). But the fact that many of the most violent terror prone parts of the middle east are not on the list undermines even that logic.

I don't argue that the ban is useful.
Only that it appears legal in the absence of any cogent argument otherwise.

 

[Underhill]

I don't argue that the ban is useful.
Only that it appears legal in the absence of any cogent argument otherwise.

It depends on the motivation. If the courts see it as a ban on nationalities, it will probably stand. If it is viewed as a ban on people of a certain religion it won't.

The fact that Trump spoke hundreds of times about banning muslims makes it pretty clear what his goal is (or at least what he wants it to be perceived as). But by limiting it to those countries I don't know that the courts will see it that way.

 

[Jainarayan]

It is outside precedent. The only times, in the history of the country, when these kinds of bans were in place they were either a response to violence (the iran hostage crisis) or the result of war. (or are viewed as a low point in US history)

At the very least any sensible person can see her point.

Did you forget 911? The USS Cole? The Beirut bombing of a Marine barracks? Those are not violence perpetrated against the US?

 

[Revoltingest]

It depends on the motivation. If the courts see it as a ban on nationalities, it will probably stand. If it is viewed as a ban on people of a certain religion it won't.

The fact that Trump spoke hundreds of times about banning muslims makes it pretty clear what his goal is (or at least what he wants it to be perceived as). But by limiting it to those countries I don't know that the courts will see it that way.

If the motivation is banning Muslims because they pose a great threat, then a court might buy it.
The original motivation is to avoid terrorism.
Courts are crap shoot....they'll often rule how they want, independent of the law.

 

[tytlyf]

If you're trying to stop terrorism, a 'pause/ban' will only fan the flames. Anyways, I don't think any recent attacks have been from immigrants.

Imagine if a terrorist went into an elementary school and shot up tons of 5 year olds.

 

[Underhill]

Did you forget 911? The USS Cole? The Beirut bombing of a Marine barracks? Those are not violence perpetrated against the US?

Sure they were. And these bans would have done nothing for any of those incidents. 9-11 was carried out by people under Saudi or Egyptian visas. Beirut happened... you know... in Beirut.

 

[Jainarayan]

9-11 was carried out by people under Saudi or Egyptian visas

We may not be able to stop attacks over seas, but do you want the next one to be from Iraq or Syria or Iran or Libya or Somalia or Sudan or Yemen against NY again, or Chicago, or DC? How about a nuclear suitcase taking out the farmland in the midwest? Or maybe someone just landing and passing through JFK setting off a bomb? Is that what you want? Or do you have another idea? Since you think the EO is a bad idea, and/or illegal, you are humbly requested to provide an alternative solution.

 

[Stevicus]

It may be questionable. But if the SG believes it to be against the law she can choose not to follow what she deems an unlawful order. She has been sacked, but the court will have their say, and from what I have seen she is right. Even if it is not a true Muslim ban, it is obvious the intent was to ban as many muslims as pragmatic when you look at what Trump has said publicly and what has been leaked.

I guess that's what I'm not clear about. If Trump's order was against the law, then which law did it violate?

 

[esmith]

I think you're confused:

- I said "U.S. Constitution", not "U.S. Code."
- a link with no comment is not an explanation.

the U.S. code is governed by the U.S. Constitution, hence what the U.S. Code puts forth is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Let me ask you a question. Do you have any arguments that says what was done is not in accordance with what is set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the U.S. code is governed by the U.S. Constitution, hence what the U.S. Code puts forth is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

I don't think you understand what I've been asking.

Since you apparently can't be bothered to read what you're replying to, I don't know any way to explain myself to you.

Let me ask you a question. Do you have any arguments that says what was done is not in accordance with what is set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

That isn't what we're talking about, but yes.

 

[Underhill]

We may not be able to stop attacks over seas, but do you want the next one to be from Iraq or Syria or Iran or Libya or Somalia or Sudan or Yemen against NY again, or Chicago, or DC? How about a nuclear suitcase taking out the farmland in the midwest? Or maybe someone just landing and passing through JFK setting off a bomb? Is that what you want? Or do you have another idea? Since you think the EO is a bad idea, and/or illegal, you are humbly requested to provide an alternative solution.

Here is a little truth for you. There is no solution.

I know you don't want to hear that. But we have plenty of evidence that terrorist can come from anywhere. We've seen them that were French, British, American, Saudi, Egyptian, German, Canadian... you name it, there is crazy everywhere.