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, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:40AM
A presidential pardon can be issued and eliminate the issue.
And don't forget, while it is customary for pardons to be given at the end of a president's term, it is in no way legally required to wait that long. And given other past precedents Trump has chosen not to follow, pardoning anyone following his rules for violating the laws is well within his capabilities (at least unless or until he is impeached.)
This is actually pretty brilliant though, because it is calling into question the rule of law in the US, something which has been violated for decades if not longer in the US, and which hasn't had a major abuse sufficient to rile up the citizenry since the civil rights movement back in the 60s. Maybe this will finally help American society decide which values it stands behind, and if the current unified states model is really what is best for all its citizens.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:16AM
What are the federal laws concerning officers acting under the colour of the law in the US?
In many countries they could be charged with assault or murder for "doing their duty" under these circumstances. People acting under the colour of the law effectively lose all civil rights while doing so.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:38PM
The US does have a Deprivation of rights under color of law [cornell.edu] law. The biggest benefit is that the individual or individuals who are doing the deprivation cannon hide behind their position. I have long said we need to see more instances of this being used as it seems all too often overlooked.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:09PM
The problem, I am afraid, is that in USA there are two societies, and they are getting away one each other day by day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:20PM
Wouldn't be the first time that a sitting president has commuted the sentence of an underling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby_clemency_controversy [wikipedia.org]
Would probably be the first time of doing it openly though.