The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: rangerrebew on January 30, 2017, 11:22:16 pm
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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*
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
The hypocrisy is slathered on thicker by the day.
(http://i.imgur.com/wCYVeIE.png)
-
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?
-
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)
-
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?
-
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.
-
There's actually quite a bit of disagreement about that.
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/
....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/
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Apparently, the original idea was that the States could overrule the USSC, thus making the arbiters of what is constitutional.
-
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.
-
If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional.
Complete unadulterated bullshit.
-
Complete unadulterated bullshit.
Then answer the question yourself.
-
Weird wrote above:
"If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional"
Nonsense.
No individual judge, nor can any group of judges (such as Federal Appellate Judges) can rule that a law is "unconstitutional" with finality.
They can issue an -opinion- to that effect.
An opinion which can be appealed and overruled.
The only jurists who actually -can- rule a law as being unconstitutional are those comprising a majority decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
And even then, their opinion can be overruled as well -- by Constitutional Amendment.
-
Weird wrote above:
"If a judge says it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional"
Nonsense.
No individual judge, nor can any group of judges (such as Federal Appellate Judges) can rule that a law is "unconstitutional" with finality.
They can issue an -opinion- to that effect.
An opinion which can be appealed and overruled.
The only jurists who actually -can- rule a law as being unconstitutional are those comprising a majority decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
And even then, their opinion can be overruled as well -- by Constitutional Amendment.
Ok fair enough, but going back to the original argument if the USSC were to decare something unconstitutional and the Executive were to do it anyway, in my eyes that simply grounds for impeachment. Otherwise we have a dictatorship.
-
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.
I kind of like the idea of letting the state legislatures picking supreme court judges with those judges being up for review every 10 years or so. They certainly wouldn't be so willing to step on the states like they did with gay marriage.
I would also like to see the attorney general picked by other means. Far too many simpletons already think the AG is supposed to be the president's personal prosecutor/defense attorney and worse yet, AGs act like it now. I like our elected state AG in Michigan because he is so solidly constitutional and has no problem opposing the Governor of the same party.
-
I kind of like the idea of letting the state legislatures picking supreme court judges with those judges being up for review every 10 years or so. They certainly wouldn't be so willing to step on the states like they did with gay marriage.
I would also like to see the attorney general picked by other means. Far too many simpletons already think the AG is supposed to be the president's personal prosecutor/defense attorney and worse yet, AGs act like it now. I like our elected state AG in Michigan because he is so solidly constitutional and has no problem opposing the Governor of the same party.
An independent elected AG might be a good idea, actually. As we saw with Nixon and Obama it seems to be a weak point of the checks and balances system.
-
Then answer the question yourself.
It doesn't matter what the question was. Your statement is complete bullshit.
If some judge declares that citizens have a 'constitutional' right to feel secure from gun violence, and that anyone caught with a gun in their house would have that gun confiscated and replaced with having a US Soldier live in their house for a year, would that be constitutional?
The answer to that question is a resounding "HELL NO!" Yet you would have us believe that the fiat of any judge trumps the Constitution itself. Which begs the question, why do we need to even have a Constitution?
-
An independent elected AG might be a good idea, actually. As we saw with Nixon and Trump it seems to be a weak point of the checks and balances system.
This would be a non issue if Sessions had been confirmed. But Turtle boy went squishy and let the rats squeeze him like a puss filled pimple.
-
It doesn't matter what the question was.
Because you clearly cannot answer it.
-
An independent elected AG might be a good idea, actually. As we saw with Nixon and Obama it seems to be a weak point of the checks and balances system.
I really like Bill Schuette here in Michigan. He has defended even what he personally disagreed with because the state constitution said he must. (we have a good elected GOP SOS here in Michigan who has also opposed the governor on more than a few occasions)
-
An independent elected AG might be a good idea, actually. As we saw with Nixon and Obama it seems to be a weak point of the checks and balances system.
I'm open to that idea but it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
-
Ok fair enough, but going back to the original argument if the USSC were to decare something unconstitutional and the Executive were to do it anyway, in my eyes that simply grounds for impeachment. Otherwise we have a dictatorship.
Grounds for impeachment? Good idea. Get the Legislative branch involved. Now we can celebrate the balance of powers our forefathers gave us and let the chips fall where they may.
President Andrew Jackson openly defied a Supreme Court order when he forced the Creeks and Cherokees off their land. Was the order Constitutional? Absolutely. Not because the Supreme Court said so, but because the Constitution itself stated it. Was Jackson impeached? No. Mainly because Congress didn't have a lot of sympathy for Native Americans, nor the treaties their own members passed.
Plessy v Ferguson. The Supreme Court ruled against the 14th Amendment, granting the State of Louisiana the right to enact different rules for different people. Woodrow Wilson would take it a step further by federalizing segregation nationwide. The vote was 7-1 with Judge Harlan dissenting. So was it Constitutional? According to the 1954 Supreme Court, it was not. They agreed with Harlan's dissent a half century earlier.
The one thing that did not change was the 14th Amendment. Same words in 1896 as in 1954. Yet one group of Judges says 'Constitutional' while another group says 'unconstitutional'.
If we are going to yield to the tyranny of men and women in black robes, then we have no need for a Constitution in the first place.
-
Because you clearly cannot answer it.
No question was asked. I am simply calling your statement for what it is - pure unadulterated bullshit.
-
No question was asked. I am simply calling your statement for what it is - pure unadulterated bullshit.
I may have spoken too simply. The USSC gets a lot of flack, unfairly IMO, from conservatives. Obama was supposedly the President who set the record for unanimous decisions against him, even from judges he himself appointed.
The USSC is a good check on Executive and Legislative power, IMO.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/
-
Just remember that if the judge was appointed by the other party, you don't have to obey them.
I am sure the next Dem President will love that precedent.
-
And if obama ignored a court order?
IF?
http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/20856
Texas Governor Greg Abbott today issued the following statement after the U.S. Department of Justice admitted to violating a federal court order by granting approximately 2,000 extended work permits to undocumented immigrants under President Obama’s expanded executive amnesty:
“After months of obfuscation and stall tactics by the Obama Administration, the President’s lawyers have been forced to admit that they acted outside the law by implementing President’s executive amnesty - even after a federal judge had ordered them to stop. Not only did President Obama’s executive action violate the U.S. Constitution; his lawyers’ actions show a blatant disregard for the Rule of Law that has become typical of this Administration and directly violates one of the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded.”
-
IF?
http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/20856 (http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/20856)
Texas Governor Greg Abbott today issued the following statement after the U.S. Department of Justice admitted to violating a federal court order by granting approximately 2,000 extended work permits to undocumented immigrants under President Obama’s expanded executive amnesty:
“After months of obfuscation and stall tactics by the Obama Administration, the President’s lawyers have been forced to admit that they acted outside the law by implementing President’s executive amnesty - even after a federal judge had ordered them to stop. Not only did President Obama’s executive action violate the U.S. Constitution; his lawyers’ actions show a blatant disregard for the Rule of Law that has become typical of this Administration and directly violates one of the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded.”
Yes I know this.
Do two wrong make a right? Why wasn't Obama found in contempt of court if he didn't obey this order?
I think the Obama administration at least did finally stop right? There was another case too, with the EPA.
-
This would be a non issue if Sessions had been confirmed. But Turtle boy went squishy and let the rats squeeze him like a puss filled pimple.
:amen: ...and yet 'they' kept the puss-filled pimpled turtle as their majority leader! :shrug: