Author Topic: EPIC: Customs Agents Stick with Trump’s Travel Ban, Tells Obama-Appointed Judge to Take a Hike  (Read 3461 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
EPIC: Customs Agents Stick with Trump’s Travel Ban, Tells Obama-Appointed Judge to Take a Hike
Posted on January 30, 2017

    12shares Share Tweet Plus

The ACLU is receiving multiple reports of agents picking Trump and his executive order. Supposedly they’re ‘willfully’ ignoring the federal judge‘s demands. Are you disappointed with their actions or think it’s awesome?

    While President Trump is taking the necessary steps to protect and defend our national security, the Left is fighting him every step of the way. Democrats and Hollywood were completely silent when Christians were getting their heads cut off or being nailed to a cross while barbaric citizens in many of the nations listed on Trump’s temporary ban watched and applauded. But all of a sudden, they’re worried about the sensibilities of refugees and how they might feel about having to wait 90 days to be properly vetted by a better system that President Trump and his team are working to put in place.

    On Friday, a federal judge in New York issued an emergency stay temporarily halting the removal of individuals detained after President Trump issued an order to ban immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S.

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/epic-customs-agents-stick-trumps-travel-ban-tells-obama-appointed-judge-take-hike/
« Last Edit: January 30, 2017, 11:23:13 pm by rangerrebew »

geronl

  • Guest
It is great we can ignore judges we don't like.

"So what if its unconstitutional? We're gonna do it anyway!"

I'm sure this won't ever be abused.

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
It is great we can ignore judges we don't like.

"So what if its unconstitutional? We're gonna do it anyway!"

I'm sure this won't ever be abused.

You are babbling like a moron. Did you read the Judges ruling? It did not rule on the legality of the EO (because it is legal), it just put a stay on sending the people already here at the airport could stay. As for the people on their way, the ruling doesn't cover them.

These agents are following the law just like they should, because it is the standing law. That is why the Rats are running around furiously trying to cobble a law to void the EO at this very moment.

Offline beandog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 989
It is great we can ignore judges we don't like.

"So what if its unconstitutional? We're gonna do it anyway!"

I'm sure this won't ever be abused.
Prove it's unconstitutional. **nononono*

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136
Prove it's unconstitutional. **nononono*


If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional. You would have been screeching like a little girl if obama ignored a court order.

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male

If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional. You would have been screeching like a little girl if obama ignored a court order.

The Judge didn't rule on that. She just put a stay on sending the people who were here at the airport home. Looks like it is Constitutional after all.

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist

If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional. You would have been screeching like a little girl if obama ignored a court order.

Trump has said that a judge's order is final when it came to gay marriage.

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136
The Judge didn't rule on that. She just put a stay on sending the people who were here at the airport home. Looks like it is Constitutional after all.


And if obama ignored a court order?

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660

If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional. You would have been screeching like a little girl if obama ignored a court order.


I don't believe that at all.   Judges make up unconstitutional rulings all the time.   I have long advocated for the people to deliberately and publicly disobey incorrect rulings by judges. 

‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136

I don't believe that at all.   Judges make up unconstitutional rulings all the time.   I have long advocated for the people to deliberately and publicly disobey incorrect rulings by judges.


Well you're a nutjob who has called for violence on here and fr time and again am I right?

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660

And if obama ignored a court order?


You're kidding?   Didn't you keep up with Obama's doings for the last 8 years?   Look up how many times he ignored rulings by the judge handling the   "deep water horizon" case. 


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660

Well you're a nutjob who has called for violence on here and fr time and again am I right?


It's beginning to look like you and "right"  don't even live in the same county.   What the H3ll are you talking about?   


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
The hypocrisy is slathered on thicker by the day.


Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136

I don't believe that at all.   Judges make up unconstitutional rulings all the time.   I have long advocated for the people to deliberately and publicly disobey incorrect rulings by judges.


Obama had one of the worst records for being overused by the scotus, should he have ignore the rulings time and again?

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member

I don't believe that at all.   Judges make up unconstitutional rulings all the time.   I have long advocated for the people to deliberately and publicly disobey incorrect rulings by judges.

And, where did judges get the power to declare something constitutional or not?  (Big can of worms, but I'm opening it anyway)

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136
And, where did judges get the power to declare something constitutional or not?  (Big can of worms, but I'm opening it anyway)


Marbury vs Madison.


If judges don't have that power then who does?




Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist

Marbury vs Madison.


If judges don't have that power then who does?

Interpreting law and deciding constitutionality is a primary duty of a federal judge.

The funny thing is that when they have legislated from the bench like they shouldn't do, Lil Donnie has declared it to be the law of the land.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
There's actually quite a bit of disagreement about that.

Quote
Who decides when the federal government has acted outside of those delegated powers?

Most Americans will quickly answer, “The Supreme Court, of course!”

Thomas Jefferson emphatically disagreed, arguing that the states make the determination in the last resort. Jefferson pointed out the absurdity of a branch of the federal government determining the extent of the federal government’s powers in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

    The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

From elementary school on, we learn that the Supreme Court gets to make the final decisions on all things constitutional. In fact, the idea is so deeply engrained in the American psyche, to assert otherwise generally elicits howls of indignant protest. But if you stop and think about it, you will recognize the notion makes absolutely no sense.....

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/22/who-decides-constitutionality-2/

Quote
....The states — the rule makers — are in an analogous situation regarding FedGov. The rules for FedGov set forth in the Constitution have been broken repeatedly and the states have failed to enforce them. When ordinary citizens bring suit to challenge unconstitutional laws — violations of the rules — FedGov itself says that it has not violated the rules. Over 200 years ago, FedGov's Judicial branch declared itself the decider in such matters when it ruled in Marbury v. Madison.

Many people believe that, because we've let FedGov decide the meaning of the Constitution's rules for more than 200 years, we now have to continue to let FedGov do so, that we have no choice. We believe that it's never too late and that corrective action is long overdue.

The states have every right to be the decider when it comes to what the Constitution means. See the Tenth Amendment. ...

http://takebackthepower.us/TheDecider.html

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/08/constitution-check-who-decides-who-gets-to-vote/

Quote
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136
No one here was able to answer my question.


Obviously you might answer "the people" but we know the founders did not trust them, rightly so.


Legislatures might be a better answer, but obviously you cannot trust them blindly.


And presidents are the most dangerous to trust with that power, see human history for guidance.


To me the USSC is the answer and the check on them is either impeachment (for gross malfeasance) or the Amendment process.


I don't want to pick on Trump, I will say this: over the past few years, well before Trump, I became acutely aware of the flaws of our system and the dangers of putting too much faith in it.


I have no answers either, in case you're wondering. Society seems to be coming apart at the seems from all side and I have no idea when/where it will end.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
It is great we can ignore judges we don't like.

"So what if its unconstitutional? We're gonna do it anyway!"

I'm sure this won't ever be abused.

Here in CA Willie & Jerry Brown say that if Trump follows through on his threat to withhold federal grants etc on account of its Sanctuary Cities, CA might just become a 'non-payer' and withhold state money flowing to DC.

So taxes really are voluntary and I'm totally onboard. Think I'll start with my property taxes.
 


« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 02:13:00 am by skeeter »

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,127
No one here was able to answer my question.


Obviously you might answer "the people" but we know the founders did not trust them, rightly so.


Legislatures might be a better answer, but obviously you cannot trust them blindly.


And presidents are the most dangerous to trust with that power, see human history for guidance.


To me the USSC is the answer and the check on them is either impeachment (for gross malfeasance) or the Amendment process.


I don't want to pick on Trump, I will say this: over the past few years, well before Trump, I became acutely aware of the flaws of our system and the dangers of putting too much faith in it.


I have no answers either, in case you're wondering. Society seems to be coming apart at the seems from all side and I have no idea when/where it will end.

The power of the USSC comes from the Constitution.  If they get to decide what is Constitutional, then they are all powerful.  Don't like it?  Try to impeach them.  Sorry, they rule that un-Constitutional.  An ammendment?  Sorry, they rule that un-Constitutional.

I think Jefferson had the right idea.  Since the Constitution is a voluntary (I don't care what happened in the war, military victory does not prove moral right) pact between the States, this is where the power should ultimately lie.

Or we could just let the UN decide, being a neutral third party and all.
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136
The power of the USSC comes from the Constitution.  If they get to decide what is Constitutional, then they are all powerful.  Don't like it?  Try to impeach them.  Sorry, they rule that un-Constitutional.  An ammendment?  Sorry, they rule that un-Constitutional.


This is a good point, although, I do think that appointing more judge might be another check on their power too. Another way congress and the president could check the power of the USSC: appointing more judges.


With USSC they are supposed to be "vetted" by both the Prez and the Congress so it they don't appoint good ones that reflects poorly on us, the people.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Apparently, the original idea was that the States could overrule the USSC, thus making the arbiters of what is constitutional.

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,136
Apparently, the original idea was that the States could overrule the USSC, thus making the arbiters of what is constitutional.


Good answer in theory, but if we've gone down the road of the USSC (appointed by President and confirmed by Senate, remember) and declaring the Constitution "unconstitutional" would you really have any more faith in the states than in the federal government? The same people in the states would have elected the federal government. Not to mention that a rogue USSC would try to declare the states "unconstitutional" as well.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional.

Complete unadulterated bullshit.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-