Trump and Damocles argue the President can violate the Constitution.

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
With regards to the Immigration Ban.... Congress has handed over their power over immigration to the President. The wording on that grant of power, gives the president plenary power.

Trump and Damocles think that it means the President can do ANYTHING he wants regarding immigration.

WRONG, we have a little thing called the CONSTITUTION!

Now I am not saying if what the President did does or does not violate the constitution, I am saying that IF it does the Courts can stop it! The President NEVER EVER has the power to VIOLATE the constitution.

Can you people understand?
 
With regards to the Immigration Ban.... Congress has handed over their power over immigration to the President. The wording on that grant of power, gives the president plenary power.

Trump and Damocles think that it means the President can do ANYTHING he wants regarding immigration.

WRONG, we have a little thing called the CONSTITUTION!

Now I am not saying if what the President did does or does not violate the constitution, I am saying that IF it does the Courts can stop it! The President NEVER EVER has the power to VIOLATE the constitution.

Can you people understand?

Sounds like you have conceded that it does not violate the Constitution.

The Judiciary was never meant to be the final say. Trump can ignore the courts rulings. Where is it written in the Constitution that the US Supreme Court has final say on ANY matter?

It doesn't.

That is power the courts have abrogated.

Presidents can ignore court rulings and what would the court do? Not a fucking thing.

Oh you lefties would cry and we would be treated to endless uses of the word "unprecedented", but Trump should tell the 9th Circuit to fuck itself and carry on with his actions
 
Sounds like you have conceded that it does not violate the Constitution.

The Judiciary was never meant to be the final say. Trump can ignore the courts rulings. Where is it written in the Constitution that the US Supreme Court has final say on ANY matter?

It doesn't.

That is power the courts have abrogated.

Presidents can ignore court rulings and what would the court do? Not a fucking thing.

Oh you lefties would cry and we would be treated to endless uses of the word "unprecedented", but Trump should tell the 9th Circuit to fuck itself and carry on with his actions

So much for checks and balances and a weak executive.
 
With regards to the Immigration Ban.... Congress has handed over their power over immigration to the President. The wording on that grant of power, gives the president plenary power.

Trump and Damocles think that it means the President can do ANYTHING he wants regarding immigration.

WRONG, we have a little thing called the CONSTITUTION!

Now I am not saying if what the President did does or does not violate the constitution, I am saying that IF it does the Courts can stop it! The President NEVER EVER has the power to VIOLATE the constitution.

Can you people understand?

why are you stupid enough to think he has.....the Boston judge, who knows more about constitutional law than you ever learned from that flyer on the reception room counter at your strip-mall law school, has already schooled you on that issue.....
 
Sounds like you have conceded that it does not violate the Constitution.

The Judiciary was never meant to be the final say. Trump can ignore the courts rulings. Where is it written in the Constitution that the US Supreme Court has final say on ANY matter?

It doesn't.

That is power the courts have abrogated.

Presidents can ignore court rulings and what would the court do? Not a fucking thing.

Oh you lefties would cry and we would be treated to endless uses of the word "unprecedented", but Trump should tell the 9th Circuit to fuck itself and carry on with his actions

So, when Obama lost in the Supreme Court, you would have been okay with him going ahead anyway?
 
Seriously???

Can Damocles really be that far gone?

I'd like to hear that from him.

What we know. Congress, per the constitution, has absolute authority over immigration and naturalization, which they then wrote into a statute giving the President authority for pretty much whatever reason he deemed of national security to simply ban immigration or travel from any nation.

My guess is the SCOTUS will rule in his favor.
.
 
Seriously???

Can Damocles really be that far gone?

I'd like to hear that from him.

Read what I wrote. You have to be the worst lawyer when it comes to constitutional law I have ever spoken with. Congress has that authority. They then gave this part of it over to the Executive in the statute previously listed above. It isn't that difficult to understand. He is fully within his given authority to write a travel ban from a list of nations, Congress wrote the statute... And they have the power to grant that authority... Simple path, easiest case ever to bring before the SCOTUS that ever existed.

z
 
Seriously???

Can Damocles really be that far gone?

I'd like to hear that from him.

Again. The congress has absolute over Immigration and Naturalization. In this instance they passed a law granting the President Authority, in this circumstance, to exercise that authority. There is no Constitutional or Legislative challenge that will stand.

It really isn't difficult. There is no constitutional violation. Just as Congress can give Obama authority to change the ACA using executive authority, they can in this case grant him authority to exercise their power...

It isn't difficult. Simple and direct path, the people who have the authority can grant the Executive the ability to exercise their authority under certain circumstances.

And yes, I clearly understand the Constitution better than you do. You really should stay out of Constitutional law, you'll never measure up.

z
 
Seriously???

Can Damocles really be that far gone?

I'd like to hear that from him.

It does, however, underscore what I said. Plenary = absolute...

You can't violate plenary powers. Had he said just Muslims from these countries couldn't come you may have a point. But he didn't.

As I've said. It is a relatively simplistic equation, even for lawyers. One of the most straight forward to bring to the SCOTUS that I've ever seen and I'm predicting the SCOTUS upholds the travel ban.

z
 

He's right on the merits and there is precedent to support that.

Whether the SC will rule in his favor is unknown. There are contributing factors they may consider .. such as none of the countries with actual involvement in 9/11 are on the list. They may consider Giuliani's comments that Trump wants to ban a religion .. which of course is unconstitutional.
 
DAMO was talking about PLENARY powers. The executive has both Constitutional and statutory powers
( statutory given by the legislature).
But that doesn't mean he can impose religious tests and "Muslim bans"and such.

The 9th should be focused on the TRO not establishment clause silliness - but being the 9th
there are the most overturned Appellate court in the nation
 
They may consider Giuliani's comments that Trump wants to ban a religion .. which of course is unconstitutional.

so is the issue for you whether the order is unconstitutional or whether a comment Trump made to Giulliani which isn't part of the order is unconstitutional?.......
 
so is the issue for you whether the order is unconstitutional or whether a comment Trump made to Giulliani which isn't part of the order is unconstitutional?.......
Guliani has nothing to do with it. you got it exactly correct. the XO does not reflect Gulianis comments in any fashion
 
With regards to the Immigration Ban.... Congress has handed over their power over immigration to the President. The wording on that grant of power, gives the president plenary power.

Trump and Damocles think that it means the President can do ANYTHING he wants regarding immigration.

WRONG, we have a little thing called the CONSTITUTION!

Now I am not saying if what the President did does or does not violate the constitution, I am saying that IF it does the Courts can stop it! The President NEVER EVER has the power to VIOLATE the constitution.

Can you people understand?

He is, of course, building a strawman argument here. I simply have never said that. I said that the Congress has Plenary authority over Naturalization and Immigration (to which Jarod agreed), then I noted US Code 1182 13 (f) where the congress gave specific executive authority to exercise a portion of that power and it reads thusly:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

I then predicted that the SCOTUS will eventually rule in favor of the travel restrictions set forward by the Executive order...
 
Trump speaking reasonably

President Trump on Wednesday brought the legal dispute over his immigration executive order into the court of public opinion, using a Washington law enforcement address to mount an urgent defense of the measure and urge the federal courts to reinstate it.

At a meeting with local sheriffs and police chiefs, the president said he issued the immigration order “for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens, so that people come in who aren't going to do us harm.”

He spoke after a hearing late Tuesday during which the Justice Department presented its arguments to the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The DOJ is fighting to overturn a Seattle judge’s decision to halt the controversial order that suspended the U.S. refugee program and immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. A decision could come at any time.

"We're in an area where, let's just say, they are interpreting things differently from probably 100 pecent of people in this room," Trump said.

Trump read out parts of the federal law outlining presidential powers on the subject, saying it was written clearly and "beautifully.”

The part of the U.S. Code he read specifies that when the president "finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation ... suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

“A bad high school student would understand this,” he said. :)

Trump said he listened to the judges Tuesday and, while vowing not to comment specifically on the hearing, said: "I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful, it was disgraceful."

Supporters of Trump's order say it will help keep America safe from terrorists looking to infiltrate the United States from terror hotspots that often have inadequate vetting procedures. Opponents have argued it is unconstitutional and discriminatory – claiming that it is a “Muslim ban.”

During Tuesday's hearing, Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued that Trump campaign statements about a Muslim ban showed discriminatory intent.

"There are statements that we've quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims, given that we haven't even had any discovery yet to find out what else might have been said in private," Purcell said.

Trump has waded into the legal battle before, largely on Twitter. He recently called the judge who halted the order, James Robart, a “so-called judge” and earlier Wednesday warned on Twitter that, “If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled.”
 
He's right on the merits and there is precedent to support that.

Whether the SC will rule in his favor is unknown. There are contributing factors they may consider .. such as none of the countries with actual involvement in 9/11 are on the list. They may consider Giuliani's comments that Trump wants to ban a religion .. which of course is unconstitutional.

SO he is not right.... He said the presidents power was absolute, case closed... then attacked my knowledge about Constitutional law because I pointed out the action still had to conform to the Constitution.
 
DAMO was talking about PLENARY powers. The executive has both Constitutional and statutory powers
( statutory given by the legislature).
But that doesn't mean he can impose religious tests and "Muslim bans"and such.

The 9th should be focused on the TRO not establishment clause silliness - but being the 9th
there are the most overturned Appellate court in the nation

That is my entire point!
 
He is, of course, building a strawman argument here. I simply have never said that. I said that the Congress has Plenary authority over Naturalization and Immigration (to which Jarod agreed), then I noted US Code 1182 13 (f) where the congress gave specific executive authority to exercise a portion of that power and it reads thusly:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

I then predicted that the SCOTUS will eventually rule in favor of the travel restrictions set forward by the Executive order...

SO, now you agree that the President's power is limited by the Constitution and thus it is reviewable and not an easy case?
 
Back
Top