SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the what-separation-of-powers department:
The Department of Homeland Security has an update on the entry ban:
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.
The NY Post adds:
The ACLU is getting "multiple reports" that federal customs agents are siding with President Trump — and willfully ignoring a Brooklyn federal judge's demand that travelers from seven Muslim countries not be deported from the nation's airports.
(Score: 3, Funny) by NewNic on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:25AM
OMG, a blog posting saying that the judge is wrong!!!!!!
My whole world view just pivoted 180 degrees. Wow. How can an anonymous blog poster possibly be wrong?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:52AM
US Code 1182 also says he is wrong. There are no restrictions put on this presidential power. Trump has absolute free reign and both he and the judge know it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:09AM
trump is a PRESIDENT, not a KING.
no such thing as abs free reign in the US.
trump will get punished. you wait and see. judges do not like being told 'no' when they make their decision and they are not under the president's control. that's why there is an exec branch sep from the others.
pres != king
PERIOD!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:21AM
Read the law.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:02AM
neither you (I assume) nor I are lawyers.
asking laymen to 'read the law' is like asking the milkman to read my python code....
I admit I don't know how to parse laws and legal documents. do you have such powers? somehow, I seriously doubt it.
(hint: even lawyers with decades of experience disagree about matters of law. why you think its simple: that tells us a lot about how your mind works, I guess. nothing in 'law' is simple. nothing!)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:15AM
Seriously, read it. It is quite simple. (f) is the bit you're looking for. Barring some case law between when Clinton did the exact same thing and now, there's not a chance in hell those judges' rulings will stand. And they knew it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Desler on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:23PM
Since when have laws been absolute and above judicial review? Oh right, never.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:51PM
Never said they were. A judge ruling on the law rather than ideals would have granted an immediate stay on their order though. These rulings were directly counter to both book and case law and thus illegal. Unfortunately you don't get to throw judges off the bench for that. Or do anything else to them. They are above the law. So you do the only thing you can and ignore their rulings until the appellate courts slap them down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:03AM
Nobody likes being told "no". You don't either. Unless you happen to be a petty tyrant, sometimes you have to suck it up, and stop acting like a special snowflake. Them's the facts of life.
Now, go read the law. It's been posted multiple times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:22AM
No vontrary to what you and Herr Trump think he is not an absolute monarch.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:27AM
Never said he was. But read the law. He does explicitly have this power.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:19PM
And the judiciary has the power to overturn it. It's called checks and balances.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:47PM
And what happens when the judiciary makes a ruling it knows is illegal and will be overturned simply to buy time enough that those currently outside the country can return? Where's the check on that power? No, you do not follow illegal orders.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:10AM
So I read the law and I don't see any clause that allows for the President to unilaterally deny entry to people holding valid visas, unless they fit into a defined category. Do you perhaps think that they are all doctors planning to practice medicine when they arrive?
It's possible that I missed something, so I would appreciate you directing my attention to the specific relevant clause.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23AM
You're confusing my position that Trump is allowed to do what he does with the position that he should be doing it. As for him being allowed, he is allowed to deny entry to any alien or group of aliens, regardless of classification, for any reason he thinks justifies doing so. Search for:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:35AM
You could have said 1182(f) if you wanted to be constructive, rather than a douche.
1182(f) is a very broad delegation of authority, to be sure, but:
(1) There are limits on what authority Congress is allowed to delegate.
(2) Congress can't delegate authority it doesn't have.
I'll focus on (2) since I know more about it. Both religion and national origin are recognized as suspect classes by the Supreme Court: the executive order directly discriminates based on the latter and is discriminating based on the former through a transparent pretense. That's certainly enough for a reasonable case to be made for unconstitutionality.
What will the ultimate appellate ruling be? No clue. I suspect this will be the first of many Supreme Court case which come into being over the next four years because no one was stupid or spiteful enough to do something before. But calling the judge a hack or fraud or whatever is absurd.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:50AM
Sure they can, just say it falls under the Commerce Clause like everything else they want to do but don't have the authority to do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:53PM
Well not like everything else. Sometimes it is considered a tax and not a tax so that it can wriggle in and out of the taxing authority of congress as needed.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:52PM
Heh, good one. +1 for you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.