Hawaii judge orders loosening of travel ban

[Peter1469]

Hawaii judge orders loosening of travel ban (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-orders-loosening-of-trump-travel-ban-1500004506)

No word on whether the President will comply. This reading of the meaning of close family is contrary to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.


A Hawaii judge late Thursday ordered a nationwide loosening of President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on U.S. entry for some travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, ruling the administration’s strict approach contradicted a recent Supreme Court ruling.

[Common]

White house is already in the process of asking the supreme court to nullify it

[katzgar]

Hawaii judge orders loosening of travel ban (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-orders-loosening-of-trump-travel-ban-1500004506)

No word on whether the President will comply. This reading of the meaning of close family is contrary to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.


thats ok it was a pointless ban anyway

[MisterVeritis]

thats ok it was a pointless ban anyway
While your comment is interesting it is not your call to make. Anyway.

[Peter1469]

thats ok it was a pointless ban anyway
Incorrect.

The government wanted a 90 day pause to review its vetting ability of people from nations with high Jihadist activity- a list made under the previous administration.

[katzgar]

Incorrect.

The government wanted a 90 day pause to review its vetting ability of people from nations with high Jihadist activity- a list made under the previous administration.


Obama already put in place a tight screening process so this entire ban thing is just more trump pandering to the uneducated. I would also point out that the dumbass in chief has been president for 5 1/2 months so his need for 3 more months would just make the banners look poor at math

[Peter1469]

Obama already put in place a tight screening process so this entire ban thing is just more trump pandering to the uneducated. I would also point out that the dumbass in chief has been president for 5 1/2 months so his need for 3 more months would just make the banners look poor at math

You are so emotionally hurt by the Hillary loss that you can't participate in a rational discussion on this topic.

Moving on....

[Peter1469]

I guess we should bring this up again- vetting of refugees when we know ISIL has injected its fighters into the system. Who do we call to check up on refugees from Syria if they are from an area outside of Assad's control?

It is ridiculous. We should be housing the refugees in the region because refugees go back home when hostilities are over.

[AeonPax]

`


Trump administration says it will go to Supreme Court after Hawaii judge expands travel ban exemptions (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hawaii-judge-travel-ban-07132017-story.html)

[MisterVeritis]

`

Trump administration says it will go to Supreme Court after Hawaii judge expands travel ban exemptions (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hawaii-judge-travel-ban-07132017-story.html)
The administration needs to tell the judge to go to hell.

[Bo-4]

thats ok it was a pointless ban anyway

You're correct - totally pointless idiocy designed to excite the uneducated.

And what have we now spent in wasted litigation and enforcement? - tens of millions no doubt.

At this point, the entire thing is moot.

[katzgar]

You are so emotionally hurt by the Hillary loss that you can't participate in a rational discussion on this topic.

Moving on....

so you are saying you dont understand math? gotcha.

[DGUtley]

1. I think the Judge was wrong.
2. If it was temporary, where's the extreme vetting procedures?
3. Regardless, it is the Executive's prerogative.
4. He should not tell the Judge to go to hell. If he did, we'd become a nation of men rather than laws, and he'd be no better than Obama.
5. The SC needs to pelosi-slap this Judge.
6. Many of us are very educated yet support this suspension. The ad hominem is pointless and really degrades from a worthwhile argument.

[katzgar]

1. I think the Judge was wrong.
2. If it was temporary, where's the extreme vetting procedures?
3. Regardless, it is the Executive's prerogative.
4. He should not tell the Judge to go to hell. If he did, we'd become a nation of men rather than laws, and he'd be no better than Obama.
5. The SC needs to pelosi-slap this Judge.
6. Many of us are very educated yet support this suspension. The ad hominem is pointless and really degrades from a worthwhile argument.
there is no need for a ban, I already pointed that out

[MisterVeritis]

1. I think the Judge was wrong.
2. If it was temporary, where's the extreme vetting procedures?
3. Regardless, it is the Executive's prerogative.
4. He should not tell the Judge to go to hell. If he did, we'd become a nation of men rather than laws, and he'd be no better than Obama.
5. The SC needs to pelosi-slap this Judge.
6. Many of us are very educated yet support this suspension. The ad hominem is pointless and really degrades from a worthwhile argument.
We need the Constitutional crisis. We do not have judges to act as co-presidents. It is time to end judicial tyranny.

[Peter1469]

The administration needs to tell the judge to go to hell.

They should have done that upfront. Foreign policy isn't really the judiciary branch's thing.

[Peter1469]

so you are saying you dont understand math? gotcha.
No. I dismissed you.

[MisterVeritis]

there is no need for a ban, I already pointed that out
Who, exactly are you? What responsibility under the Constitution do you have for deciding what is, or is not required?

[DGUtley]

there is no need for a ban, I already pointed that out

That is the prerogative of the Executive. Period. It is not your call nor that of the courts. Period.

[katzgar]

Who, exactly are you? What responsibility under the Constitution do you have for deciding what is, or is not required?

I am a citizen that doesnt fall for trumps pandering

[katzgar]

That is the prerogative of the Executive. Period. It is not your call nor that of the courts. Period.

You arent following things very well. I simply pointed out that trumps ban appeals to those that are uneducated.

[katzgar]

No. I dismissed you.

the math thing again? gotcha

[DGUtley]

You arent following things very well. I simply pointed out that trumps ban appeals to those that are uneducated.

And I already pointed out to you that many of us educated favor his ban. Before up throw out insults, how educated are you? You can find my education on the internet. Can I find yours on the internet? What's your education level.

[MisterVeritis]

I am a citizen that doesnt fall for trumps pandering
Do you believe being anti-Trump gives you some magical ability to determine what is, or is not in the nation's interest?

You will get another chance to influence who runs the nation in about 4 years.

[Peter1469]

Do you believe being anti-Trump gives you some magical ability to determine what is, or is not in the nation's interest?

You will get another chance to influence who runs the nation in about 4 years.
If he is old enough to vote.

[MisterVeritis]

And I already pointed out to you that many of us educated favor his ban. Before up throw out insults, how educated are you? You can find my education on the internet. Can I find yours on the internet? What's your education level.
Given my retirement my education is unimportant. But I have a Masters degree (Computer Resources and Information Management) and spent the last 14-plus years as an engineer and engineering manager. I am pretty sure I am a match for most people on the Internet. :-)

[MisterVeritis]

if he is old enough to vote.
lol.

[katzgar]

And I already pointed out to you that many of us educated favor his ban. Before up throw out insults, how educated are you? You can find my education on the internet. Can I find yours on the internet? What's your education level.
you cant be all that educated if you think trump needs an added 90 days to do something he wants 90 days to do and has had 150 days to complete. this is about as simple as math gets.

The fact that the vetting was made very rigorous under Obama means you are either ignorant or just have a right wing agenda.

[katzgar]

Do you believe being anti-Trump gives you some magical ability to determine what is, or is not in the nation's interest?

You will get another chance to influence who runs the nation in about 4 years.


I do believe those that support the ban do indeed have serious issues trying to defend the indefensible.

[Crepitus]

Incorrect.

The government wanted a 90 day pause to review its vetting ability of people from nations with high Jihadist activity- a list made under the previous administration.

They've had 6 months, aren't they done reviewing their vetting abilities yet?

[Kalkin]

there is no need for a ban, I already pointed that out
Your opinion is not fact. This has already been pointed out as well.

[Crepitus]

You are so emotionally hurt by the Hillary loss that you can't participate in a rational discussion on this topic.

Moving on....

Come on Pete, that's the kinda response we expect outta veritis or Tahuyaman.

[katzgar]

Your opinion is not fact. This has already been pointed out as well.

the dumbass in chief wants 90 days to do something that Obama already did. That is fact. The dumbass in chief has had 150 days to do what he wanted 90 days to do. That is fact.

[Kalkin]

the dumbass in chief wants 90 days to do something that Obama already did. That is fact. The dumbass in chief has had 150 days to do what he wanted 90 days to do. That is fact.
Are you still in your teens?

[DGUtley]

you cant be all that educated if you think trump needs an added 90 days to do something he wants 90 days to do and has had 150 days to complete. this is about as simple as math gets. The fact that the vetting was made very rigorous under Obama means you are either ignorant or just have a right wing agenda.

As I said, my education level is on the internet for all to see. I asked for yours though and you didn't answer my question. Let me answer it for you: 'DGUtley, I'm far less educated than you are but I like to throw out insults like 'uneducated' because it makes me feel smart.' I argue for a living, I get paid to do it and I do it every day. When you resort to insults, you've lost the argument. The point is that it's the province of the Executive. Period. In your haste to brand me uneducated, you missed that I do actually agree with one of your points. Do you see how that worked..?

[Kalkin]

As I said, my education level is on the internet for all to see. I asked for yours though and you didn't answer my question. Let me answer it for you: 'DGUtley, I'm far less educated than you are but I like to throw out insults like 'uneducated' because it makes me feel smart.'
Ouch. That had to leave a mark.

[katzgar]

As I said, my education level is on the internet for all to see. I asked for yours though and you didn't answer my question. Let me answer it for you: 'DGUtley, I'm far less educated than you are but I like to throw out insults like 'uneducated' because it makes me feel smart.' I argue for a living, I get paid to do it and I do it every day. When you resort to insults, you've lost the argument. The point is that it's the province of the Executive. Period. In your haste to brand me uneducated, you missed that I do actually agree with one of your points. Do you see how that worked..?


still it is a pointless ban, I have shown why you have not made any case for it at all. not knowing that Obama tightened up the vetting is indeed ignorant. not knowing that trump wants to do something in 90 days he has already has 150 days to do is ignorant.

[DGUtley]

still it is a pointless ban, I have shown why you have not made any case for it at all.

It is not for you to decide. It is the province of the Executive. Again, what is the link on the internet for your education level?

[katzgar]

It is not for you to decide. It is the province of the Executive. Again, what is the link on the internet for your education level?

your attempt to hide your ignorance about the ban is really pathetic.

[DGUtley]

your attempt to hide your ignorance about the ban is really pathetic.

Ok.

[MisterVeritis]

I do believe those that support the ban do indeed have serious issues trying to defend the indefensible.
What is indefensible is allowing the courts to interfere. Courts have no authority to act. It is time to kick some judicial activist ass.

[MisterVeritis]

your attempt to hide your ignorance about the ban is really pathetic.
Imagine that! A liberal troll.

[katzgar]

Imagine that! A liberal troll.

you would be better served by explaining why trump needs 90 days to do something that has already been done and to explain why he needs 90 days to do something he has had 150 days to do.

[MisterVeritis]

you would be better served by explaining why trump needs 90 days to do something that has already been done and to explain why he needs 90 days to do something he has had 150 days to do.
I am not President Trump. If he says he wants a 90-day pause in travel from those countries to put in place a regimen necessary to prevent terrorists from traveling from those countries that is sufficient for me. He has the responsibility. Not me. Certainly not you.

[Standing Wolf]

DGUtley...do you agree with Veritis' view that the courts have no authority to review legislative and executive actions? Is it your understanding that the President's authority in matters of immigration is absolute and not subject to limitation, even by existing law?

[MisterVeritis]

@DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019)...do you agree with Veritis' view that the courts have no authority to review legislative and executive actions? Is it your understanding that the President's authority in matters of immigration is absolute and not subject to limitation, even by existing law?
Why do you feel the need to misstate my position? The courts have no authority to act. The Constitution grants enormous authority to the Congress. They, in turn, have granted operational control to the President.

[Tahuyaman]

Hawaii judge orders loosening of travel ban (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-orders-loosening-of-trump-travel-ban-1500004506)

No word on whether the President will comply. This reading of the meaning of close family is contrary to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

These activist judges just can't get over it.

[Peter1469]

you cant be all that educated if you think trump needs an added 90 days to do something he wants 90 days to do and has had 150 days to complete. this is about as simple as math gets.

The fact that the vetting was made very rigorous under Obama means you are either ignorant or just have a right wing agenda.
Your understanding of the legal issues is nul.

[DGUtley]

@DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019)...do you agree with Veritis' view that the courts have no authority to review legislative and executive actions? Is it your understanding that the President's authority in matters of immigration is absolute and not subject to limitation, even by existing law?

I do not.

[Peter1469]

They've had 6 months, aren't they done reviewing their vetting abilities yet?


I also advocated for the administration to ignore the judicial injunction. Glad to see that you and I are on the same page.

[Tahuyaman]

Obama already put in place a tight screening process so this entire ban thing is just more trump pandering to the uneducated. I would also point out that the dumbass in chief has been president for 5 1/2 months so his need for 3 more months would just make the banners look poor at math


There was no tight screening process because there are no records to screen from these various nations.


Your comments smack of partisanship and should be treated as such.

[Peter1469]

Come on Pete, that's the kinda response we expect outta veritis or Tahuyaman.

The kid has yet to post anything worth commenting on.

[Peter1469]

the dumbass in chief wants 90 days to do something that Obama already did. That is fact. The dumbass in chief has had 150 days to do what he wanted 90 days to do. That is fact.

an example :smiley:

[MisterVeritis]

I do not.
I don't expect you to be right on everything.

What Constitutional authority does a judge have to be co-president? He or she is certainly not acting in accordance with the Constitution nor with the long-standing law.

[Tahuyaman]

Come on Pete, that's the kinda response we expect outta veritis or Tahuyaman.

It's easy to get under your skin. All one needs to do is inject facts into any discussion.

[katzgar]

an example :smiley:

you want an example of why trump needs 150 days to do what he says he needs 90 days to do? you arent rational.

[katzgar]

The kid has yet to post anything worth commenting on.


I know, the ignorance you show is just expected

[katzgar]

There was no tight screening process because there are no records to screen from these various nations.


Your comments smack of partisanship and should be treated as such.


your ignorance is easy to vet just google it and you will see how uneducated your post is...never mind you obviously need the help. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-syrian-refugee-crisis/

[Tahuyaman]

Facts fall flat on ^^^^

[katzgar]

The kid has yet to post anything worth commenting on.

no reason to be mean just because you cant follow it

[Peter1469]

Does this judge realize that SCOTUS gives deference to the executive when dealing with foreign policy? I recommend that people check out my thread about why it is good that the federal judiciary is shifting towards the right.

[Standing Wolf]

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

Period, as they say.

[MisterVeritis]

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

Period, as they say.
Show me, in the Constitution where judges get to be co-presidents.

[MisterVeritis]

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

Period, as they say.
What laws did you find in conflict? We have a judge who doesn't like the President and is fucking with him. This must end. I hope the Congress will disestablish the Federal judiciary. We need to start over. This one is corrupt.

[katzgar]

Show me, in the Constitution where judges get to be co-presidents.


you are just playing silly games

[MisterVeritis]

you are just playing silly games
It is the judge who is violating the Constitution and the law. If he opposed Crooked Hillary he would have committed suicide by now.

[katzgar]

It is the judge who is violating the Constitution and the law. If he opposed Crooked Hillary he would have committed suicide by now.

your post is arrogant

[Crepitus]

I also advocated for the administration to ignore the judicial injunction. Glad to see that you and I are on the same page.

No idea how you got that from such a simple sentence.

[Crepitus]

It's easy to get under your skin. All one needs to do is inject facts into any discussion.

Peter1469. And look who thanked it.

[MisterVeritis]

your post is arrogant
You misspelled accurate.

[Tahuyaman]

It's easy to get under your skin. All one needs to do is inject facts into any discussion.


@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10). And look who thanked it.. Can you explain that response?

[Crepitus]

. Can you explain that response?

Certainly.

The question you should be asking is "will you explain that response".

[Archer0915]

Obama already put in place a tight screening process so this entire ban thing is just more trump pandering to the uneducated. I would also point out that the dumbass in chief has been president for 5 1/2 months so his need for 3 more months would just make the banners look poor at math
I am glad you believe others are uneducated. How about others that support this move have great wisdom.

[Tahuyaman]

Certainly.

The question you should be asking is "will you explain that response". Forget it.

[AeonPax]

Things I learned wasting time reading this thread - Warning, it was next to nothing.

1) People still have childish arguments over who's the most educated and smartest. (In this thread? No one)

2) This reaffirms that anyone with over a 5th grade education immediately becomes a constitutional expert.

3) Once again, as is the habit in all forums, some people think their opinions are facts. - (They aren't)

[Standing Wolf]

Not referencing, disputing or supporting any particular post or member, I think it's undisputedly true that a person can be "uneducated" on a particular subject and still be a highly intelligent and/or degreed individual. Intelligence, I believe, is in part an awareness of what you don't know - and maturity is in part the willingness to acknowledge it. We all have gaps in our knowledge and education; for example, anything involving money tends to bore the life out of me - I had to struggle to stay awake during my classes in Business Law - so I avoid any but the simplest discussions that involve Economics. The history behind and implications and importance of Judicial Review in the American legal system is not a simple and easy topic - not something you pick up from reading online blogs and opinion pieces. It's an interesting study, but not one that everyone has the time or the patience to undertake.

[DGUtley]

Not referencing, disputing or supporting any particular post or member, I think it's undisputedly true that a person can be "uneducated" on a particular subject and still be a highly intelligent and/or degreed individual. Intelligence, I believe, is in part an awareness of what you don't know - and maturity is in part the willingness to acknowledge it. We all have gaps in our knowledge and education; for example, anything involving money tends to bore the life out of me - I had to struggle to stay awake during my classes in Business Law - so I avoid any but the simplest discussions that involve Economics. The history behind and implications and importance of Judicial Review in the American legal system is not a simple and easy topic - not something you pick up from reading online blogs and opinion pieces. It's an interesting study, but not one that everyone has the time or the patience to undertake.

1. SW, I agree with you but when someone shotguns the term "ignorant" "arrogant" "uneducated" in a broad brush fashion to quite a few of us they should stand up and demonstrate their acumen.
2. Yes, the concept of Judicial Review is complicated and well-settled. That ship sailed a long time ago. We spent an entire semester on it in ConLaw (year two, I think, but it's been so long).

[katzgar]

1. SW, I agree with you but when someone shotguns the term "ignorant" "arrogant" "uneducated" in a broad brush fashion to quite a few of us they should stand up and demonstrate their acumen.
2. Yes, the concept of Judicial Review is complicated and well-settled. That ship sailed a long time ago. We spent an entire semester on it in ConLaw (year two, I think, but it's been so long).


I am at a loss as how to get information to sink in around. I just posted what I said in an earlier post try and comprehend it this time.
"Obama already put in place a tight screening process so this entire ban thing is just more trump pandering to the uneducated. I would also point out that the dumbass in chief has been president for 5 1/2 months so his need for 3 more months would just make the banners look poor at math"

[katzgar]

I am glad you believe others are uneducated. How about others that support this move have great wisdom.

the wisdom of needing 3 months to do what he has had 5 months to do is idiotic.

[Peter1469]

the wisdom of needing 3 months to do what he has had 5 months to do is idiotic.

Already answered. Courts issued injunctions.

[donttread]

Hawaii judge orders loosening of travel ban (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-orders-loosening-of-trump-travel-ban-1500004506)

No word on whether the President will comply. This reading of the meaning of close family is contrary to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.


Send the visitors to the judges neighborhood. Buty the place next door and set up a poorly monitored imigration center/ half way house.

[Peter1469]

Send the visitors to the judges neighborhood. Buty the place next door and set up a poorly monitored imigration center/ half way house.

Good suggestion.

[katzgar]

Things I learned wasting time reading this thread - Warning, it was next to nothing.

1) People still have childish arguments over who's the most educated and smartest. (In this thread? No one)

2) This reaffirms that anyone with over a 5th grade education immediately becomes a constitutional expert.

3) Once again, as is the habit in all forums, some people think their opinions are facts. - (They aren't)

you could also have learned that posters on this thread cant do math and you also learned that Obama put a rigorous vetting process in place...if you were paying attention.

[Cletus]

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

Period, as they say.


Marshall should have been hanged for his power grab. He assumed powers not granted the courts by the Constitution.

[Standing Wolf]

Marshall should have been hanged for his power grab. He assumed powers not granted the courts by the Constitution.

The power of the Supreme Court is held in check by its composition being controlled by the Executive and Legislative branches. If the Judicial branch of government's role is not to keep the acts of the President and the legislation passed by the Congress from violating the Constitution and other existing law - particularly as it pertains to the violation of the rights of individuals whose cases are brought to it by the appeals process - what do you think the high court's role is? Why do we even have a Supreme Court if they are to be powerless to point out and countermand those clear violations of the Constitution and federal law of which Presidents and Congresses are so fond?

[donttread]

Marshall should have been hanged for his power grab. He assumed powers not granted the courts by the Constitution.

That's what the Donkephant does, usuro powers not granted to them

[MisterVeritis]

The power of the Supreme Court is held in check by its composition being controlled by the Executive and Legislative branches. If the Judicial branch of government's role is not to keep the acts of the President and the legislation passed by the Congress from violating the Constitution and other existing law - particularly as it pertains to the violation of the rights of individuals whose cases are brought to it by the appeals process - what do you think the high court's role is? Why do we even have a Supreme Court if they are to be powerless to point out and countermand those clear violations of the Constitution and federal law of which Presidents and Congresses are so fond?
The article creating the court is tiny. The courts were supposed to be essentially powerless. Instead, they are uncheckable. They have become tyrannical.

[Standing Wolf]

The courts were supposed to be essentially powerless.

If you're referring to the court system in some third-world banana republic dictatorship, you are correct. In the U.S., the courts are the place where citizens are able to go for justice when faced with a tyrannical, clueless or incompetent Executive or Legislature.

[MisterVeritis]

If you're referring to the court system in some third-world banana republic dictatorship, you are correct. In the U.S., the courts are the place where citizens are able to go for justice when faced with a tyrannical, clueless or incompetent Executive or Legislature.
This is all of Article III.

I see nothing allowing a federal judge to be the co-president. Do you?

Article IIISection 1.The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi);--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

[Standing Wolf]

That silly, made-up "co-president" label is getting in your way, MV.

[MisterVeritis]

That silly, made-up "co-president" label is getting in your way, MV.
In what way? Do you find words in Article III that allow a federal judge to determine what a President may do regarding the President's duties? Can a president decide on his own that a judicial proclamation can be watered down or reversed? If we are going to have co-presidents can we also have co-judges?

[Standing Wolf]

In the case of the travel ban(s) - and this has been pointed out numerous times in various threads - while the President does have broad authority to set policy in that area, his actions cannot violate federal law...nor are his actions immune from scrutiny with regard to reasonableness. Religion-based prohibitions are not permitted by law, and not considering grandparents to be "close relatives" is unreasonable (and stupid).

[MisterVeritis]

In the case of the travel ban(s) - and this has been pointed out numerous times in various threads - while the President does have broad authority to set policy in that area, his actions cannot violate federal law...nor are his actions immune from scrutiny with regard to reasonableness. Religion-based prohibitions are not permitted by law, and not considering grandparents to be "close relatives" is unreasonable (and stupid).
The President's actions did not violate federal law. His actions implemented federal law.

You want to exchange your views for his. Nothing more. if you want to be the President then get off your butt and go run to be the President.

[Cletus]

The power of the Supreme Court is held in check by its composition being controlled by the Executive and Legislative branches.


Not really. That assumes the political and legal philosophies of a candidate for Justice are known by the other branches and will never change. Ideally a judge should be chosen because of his dedication to the law and nothing else. We both know that doesn't happen.

Marshal overstepped when he decided the Court should be able to overrule the Legislature. That was never intended and in fact, it was one of the things both Madison and Jefferson feared most... an all powerful Judiciary, capable of overruling both the Executive and the Legislature. That power makes them the unelected (by the People) true rulers of this nation.

[Peter1469]

In the case of the travel ban(s) - and this has been pointed out numerous times in various threads - while the President does have broad authority to set policy in that area, his actions cannot violate federal law...nor are his actions immune from scrutiny with regard to reasonableness. Religion-based prohibitions are not permitted by law, and not considering grandparents to be "close relatives" is unreasonable (and stupid).
It has been established in court that the actual EO is constitutional. The courts that ruled against it based their decision off Trump campaign rhetoric. SCOTUS does not do that, so the unanimous decision to lift the stay.

[Peter1469]

Not really. That assumes the political and legal philosophies of a candidate for Justice are known by the other branches and will never change. Ideally a judge should be chosen because of his dedication to the law and nothing else. We both know that doesn't happen.

Marshal overstepped when he decided the Court should be able to overrule the Legislature. That was never intended and in fact, it was one of the things both Madison and Jefferson feared most... an all powerful Judiciary, capable of overruling both the Executive and the Legislature. That power makes them the unelected (by the People) true rulers of this nation.


This is a difficult part of US history. What do you feel the Founders intended for the judiciary to do?

[MisterVeritis]

This is a difficult part of US history. What do you feel the Founders intended for the judiciary to do?

This:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;
--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;
--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi);
--between citizens of different states;
--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Peter1469]

That is a lot of stuff.

[Tahuyaman]

Activist judges can't even slow their roll when the Supreme Court slaps them down.

[MisterVeritis]

That is a lot of stuff.
Note that it does not allow intrusion into the president's prerogatives. Nor does it allow them to decide what is, or is not Constitutional.

[Standing Wolf]

Note that it does not allow intrusion into the president's prerogatives. Nor does it allow them to decide what is, or is not Constitutional.

The jurists and legal scholars of 200+ years disagree.

[donttread]

The power of the Supreme Court is held in check by its composition being controlled by the Executive and Legislative branches. If the Judicial branch of government's role is not to keep the acts of the President and the legislation passed by the Congress from violating the Constitution and other existing law - particularly as it pertains to the violation of the rights of individuals whose cases are brought to it by the appeals process - what do you think the high court's role is? Why do we even have a Supreme Court if they are to be powerless to point out and countermand those clear violations of the Constitution and federal law of which Presidents and Congresses are so fond?


The SC log agao became nothing more than an extension of the donkephant. However, we now have a real live textualist on the court, so times might be a changin.

[MisterVeritis]

The jurists and legal scholars of 200+ years disagree.
I will freely admit the tyranny has advanced steadily. That in no way changes its tyrannical nature.

[Standing Wolf]

I'd be fascinated to hear how anyone thinks it would work if the President and Congress could do, essentially, anything they wanted to without having to worry about the citizens affected by their actions taking their cases to the federal court system.

You do know that when the Supreme Court takes up a case it isn't doing it totally of its own volition, don't you? The justices don't just read the paper and say, "We should make a decision about that"? That it's the citizens empowered by the Tenth Amendment ("...and to the people") who are seeking relief and justice?

Go ahead, please - tell me how you think it would work if Judicial Review were not an established reality...if the President and Congress were the final arbiters of the constitutionality of their own actions.

[MisterVeritis]

I'd be fascinated to hear how anyone thinks it would work if the President and Congress could do, essentially, anything they wanted to without having to worry about the citizens affected by their actions taking their cases to the federal court system.

You do know that when the Supreme Court takes up a case it isn't doing it totally of its own volition, don't you? The justices don't just read the paper and say, "We should make a decision about that"? That it's the citizens empowered by the Tenth Amendment ("...and to the people") who are seeking relief and justice?

Go ahead, please - tell me how you think it would work if Judicial Review were not an established reality...if the President and Congress were the final arbiters of the constitutionality of their own actions.
It would work as the Constitution is written.

[Standing Wolf]

Anyone have a real answer?

[MisterVeritis]

Anyone have a real answer?
Yes. It would work as the Constitution is written.

[Cletus]

The jurists and legal scholars of 200+ years disagree.

Self interest.

Madison and Jefferson would have said they were wrong and personally, I would be inclined to listen to them a little more closely.

[Cletus]

I'd be fascinated to hear how anyone thinks it would work if the President and Congress could do, essentially, anything they wanted to without having to worry about the citizens affected by their actions taking their cases to the federal court system.

You do know that when the Supreme Court takes up a case it isn't doing it totally of its own volition, don't you? The justices don't just read the paper and say, "We should make a decision about that"? That it's the citizens empowered by the Tenth Amendment ("...and to the people") who are seeking relief and justice?

Go ahead, please - tell me how you think it would work if Judicial Review were not an established reality...if the President and Congress were the final arbiters of the constitutionality of their own actions.

The idea, perverted by Marshal and others, was for the states and the People to be the arbiters.

Think about it, SW... the Supreme Court has the power to nullify acts of the Executive and the Legislature. That makes them the most powerful political entity in the world. That was never the intention of the Framers. Everyone likes to talk about checks and balances, but there are no checks and balances on the Court. I suppose you could consider impeachment, but that is not realistically any kind of safeguard against the actions of the Court.

[Standing Wolf]

The idea, perverted by Marshal and others, was for the states and the People to be the arbiters.

Think about it, SW... the Supreme Court has the power to nullify acts of the Executive and the Legislature. That makes them the most powerful political entity in the world. That was never the intention of the Framers. Everyone likes to talk about checks and balances, but there are no checks and balances on the Court. I suppose you could consider impeachment, but that is not realistically any kind of safeguard against the actions of the Court.

So if you and I, as American citizens, feel that our rights are being violated by some act of Congress or some directive of the President, our recourse is to...?

[MisterVeritis]

So if you and I, as American citizens, feel that our rights are being violated by some act of Congress or some directive of the President, our recourse is to...?
Take the case to court. The judges can decide based on the law and the merits. If the law has problems let the judges side with the plaintiffs and send the note to the Legislature for their consideration.

[Standing Wolf]

Take the case to court. The judges can decide based on the law and the merits. If the law has problems let the judges side with the plaintiffs and send the note to the Legislature for their consideration.

"[S]end the note to the Legislature for their consideration"? That isn't the way courts work, for one thing. For another, what if the Congress ignores the court and the citizens and simply continues to act in violation of the Constitution?

[MisterVeritis]

"[S]end the note to the Legislature for their consideration"? That isn't the way courts work, for one thing. For another, what if the Congress ignores the court and the citizens and simply continues to act in violation of the Constitution?
If the legislature does not see fit to modify the law then vote in different legislators. Or amend the Constitution.

[Agent Zero]

If the legislature does not see fit to modify the law then vote in different legislators. Or amend the Constitution.
No need to. Homeland Security amended their rules today, and grandparents et al are officially welcome.

[texan]

Hawaii judge orders loosening of travel ban (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-orders-loosening-of-trump-travel-ban-1500004506)

No word on whether the President will comply. This reading of the meaning of close family is contrary to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

I do not think they have to comply. Same dumba$$ that got it shoved up his ass by SCOTUS.

[Peter1469]

SCOTUS is an equal branch to the legislative and executive branches.

[Cletus]

SCOTUS is an equal branch to the legislative and executive branches.

But it is not. It has the power to negate the will of both the Executive and the Legislature. The idea of it being equal is nice in theory, but in reality, it is far more powerful than the others. That is not the way it is supposed to be. Ideally, the Legislature should wield the most power because it is supposed to express the will of the People. The Executive runs the government and the Judiciary dispenses justice in accordance with the laws passed by the Legislature and enforced by the Executive.