The 9th circuit court just ruled against Trump and the American people

1. 78

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   This ruling is an over reach by our courts to co opt the powers of the Executive branch.
   When did our courts and judges stop reading our Constitution?
   They are suppose to rule based on the Constitution, instead they have rewritten the Constitution for political expediency.
   My prediction is:
   If a terrorist action can be traced to one of the peope entering our country in the near future from one of these 7 countries, there will be blood on the hands of these judges.
   That is the plain truth...

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Paul Wingertposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Are you a lawyer? Didn't think so.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I read the Constitution.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Paul Wingertposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I wish more people would read it too. It is not hard to understand. It is not full of legal terms.
               It was meant for common people to read and understand.
               I am willing to bet the schools don't even teach it anymore.
               That is why I think many people in power, including some judges don't understand what is in it.
               Why they took an oath to support and defend a document they hardly understand?
               Have you read it?
               Do you know what is in it?
               Don't tell me so what...
               The answer it, it means everything to me.

               replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Please explain how the ruling by the three judges -- two of whom are conservative Republicans -- is a violation of the Constitution.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I'll be glad to. The Constitution gives the President sweeping powers when it comes to borders and immigration control. It is his responsibility to protect the homeland and keep us safe. When he issues an executive order restricting,  temporary migration, of non citizens from 7 countries with security risks, it is within those powers. Remember, he has access to daily intelligence briefings thst we and the judges don't have. Who knows what are the new risks in play...?
         These judges, in the name of political correctness and politics, are willing to risk our lives to give foreign immigrants preference over our citizen's safety.
         As I said, if any terror incident happens, there will be blood on their hands.
         
         What Trump did is no different than what past presidents did along the same line...Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Carter...
         
         These activist judges on the 9th circuit will be over ruled by the Supreme Court, IMHO.
         The Constitution will rule at the end of the day. Please go read it, it is only 8000+ words.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Judges and legal scholars disagree with your interpretation.
            
            I have read the Constitution. I own a copy.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               So I guess it is above our pay grade. Let the Supreme court decide...

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  Jean Bakulaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Jackclee,
                  I think from what I've been hearing a lot of the trouble is in the way he worded the Presidential Order. If he would just have ripped this one up, and got advice on the best way to rewrite it, it would probably have gone through. At least that's what I was hearing last night, before today's decision was made.
                  
                  He asked Rudy Guiliani how to write up a "back door" way to keep Muslims out of the country. It's not helping that Rudy is going around saying that on every interview show. It's going to prove that the POTUS discriminated a religious group, a definite no/no.
                  
                  I read a good book a few years ago, Drift, by Rachel Maddow. I know everyone thinks she's uber progressive, being on MSNBC, but they are trying to be a little less far left than they used to be. She makes a good case that the last 4 or so Presidents have abused their powers, and aren't getting Congressional approvals or working with the Legislative or Executive bodies.
                  
                  The Intelligence Agency is disgusted with Trump, he won't listen to them and they are saying he doesn't have the attention span to listen to what they are trying to tell them in the briefings.
                  
                  People liked the idea he was a Washington outsider, but he made the swamp deeper. Now he has all millionaires and billionaires who don't know what they are doing in his cabinet. When Elizabeth Warren read a speech last night on the floor of Congress from Martin Luther King's Widow, Coretta Scott King, she got rebuked and asked to leave the room. Sessions was a racist years ago, he wanted segregation years after LBJ ruled for Civil Rights, and she was trying to prove Sessions never changed.
                  
                  This administration doesn't want to make America great, America is great. These are all people who have their own agendas. Today Kellyanne Conway was in front of a Presidential Seal telling people to buy Ivanka's line of clothing at Nordstroms. How many times does the Trump family have to be told they aren't allowed to make money from the Presidency? He still has not divested from his business interests, which is illegal. He thinks a President can do whatever he or she wants, and they can't. He has to follow the rules.That's why we've had a crisis everyday he's been in office. I doubt he makes it 4 years without getting impeached.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I hear you. So suddenly, after 8 years of President Obama, shreading the Constitution, now people care about it. How convenient. I am a conservative and I am consistant. I go by what is the law and leave politics out of my decision.
                     I hope people come to their senses regarding Trump.
                     Do what you must but be forewarned. He is a winner and he will win for America.
                     Anyone going against him will lose. IMHO.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I agree, Trump will win!

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Trump should know you can't win them all. Even in his pass 3500 lawsuits.
                           
                           Where the blood on the judges hands come from . Not from these 7 countries on American soil. Only.blood I clearly see is muslims blood from being invaded by American in their home lands.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              The 9th Circuit has a terrible record at the Supreme Court, they just don't win generally.  This is nothing but another coup.  Three judges were not elected president, Trump was. 
                              
                              The globalists can't stand it that they are defeated and are rebelling.

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 Jean Bakulaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Trump is so childish. Just because he is President, doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. The 9th Circuit does't want to take the country back 50 years, like most of Trumps' cabinet, who could have made him look less foolish if he chose people who understood their jobs. He should have gone to the briefings. He's failing because he's listening to bad advice, and apparently has ADD.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 72

                           Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           "This is a humiliating defeat for the White House, revealing just how amateurish the president and his advisers are. The frightful part is that if they cannot handle a simple executive order, what makes anyone think they can handle far more difficult challenges?"  The Washington Post

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              This whole affair highlights just what is wrong with our judicial system, not what is wrong with the executive order.
                              Any clear thinking unbiased people will see through this political ploy.
                              If a President Obama issues an executive order that violated the Constitution, and no one complains, yet a President Trump issues an order that is within his duties, and is challenged by a judge...
                              We have a problem Huston...
                              The more they go down this path, the more it will expose the failures of DC and the elites.
                              Keep it up, let the people see what is going on, how sausages are made in DC...
                              The silver lining of this is, perhaps, it will inspire some Americans to actually read our Constitution.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Here is my hub on America Civics -
                                 https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/American-Civics-101

                                 replyreport
                           2. 77

                              colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              The Washington Post is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to liberal bias and bashing Trump.  They have lost all credibility with people who can and do think for themselves, and know better.  Bezos is an a$$.

                              replyreport
                           3. 78

                              jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Here is story that should make anyone take notice -
                              http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … -come-u-s/

                              replyreport
                              1. 75

                                 Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Dealing with Trump you have to match his Witt each step of the way or you loose, he win another using the con game.
                                 
                                 Related to 7 Muslims countries ban, none of these Muslims killed an American on their soil between 1975 2015
                                 
                                 Bowling Green Massacre- Fake
                                 Toledo - Fake   
                                 The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. Fifteen of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon
                                 -Fake
                                 
                                 Colorful is a big follower of Alex Jones show,, even Jones thinks 9/11 was an inside job. That is where Trump get some of his information.and trusts it.
                                 
                                 If I showed a photo of a Cow, and said this is a photo of a cow,  Would Trump supporters denies that too. Or would they hire blind people to investigate.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    You are so dishonest.
                                    As a Canadian, you have no security risk with any decision made by our courts.
                                    Prior to 9/11, you can make the same argument...
                                    Yet, 3000 people died because we were not paying attention.
                                    
                                    Never again will the US be put into that situation. I fell strongly that, that is what's behind Trump's thinking as well.
                                    If the world or these globalist companies and leaders have a problem with that, take it up to a higher power.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 75

                                       Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Your leader Trump I have already defeated him once, in a legal engagement. Never met a more dishonest man in my life. I walk my talk and only have two rules in life. Be honest and do not harm. If I make a false statement, that error will be quickly corrected  Show my error, for your sake of living in the future ground zero, South America is where you ought to be..not even Canada is safe now.
                                       
                                       In Trump case, none of you on this thread can prove otherwise. Conway already admitted to her mistake about Bowling Green, since Bowling Green is where the base is for Banning, Trump will ignore her mistake and make the greatest mistake in America history by banning Muslim and is already attacking Iraq and Syria all over again. Unless he is lying again. he going to bomb all of the Middle east and take  their oil. If America have any consciousness about another million children killed again. You won't push him to kill children, Best you fire him, before he gets you nuked too..Obama was a puppet and ask the public to help him from his trap, the story continues with Trump but much worst..

                                       report
                                       1. 89

                                          Jean Bakulaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          My understanding is still as others have said here--all Trump has to do is rewrite the PO with careful attention to the language, and it would pass. I don't see why he doesn't do that instead of appealing. It would make him look stronger if he won this one.

                                          report
         2. 78

            Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The amount of ignorance on display in this comment is staggering. I suggest you educate yourself on the roles of the three branches of government, and the separation of powers before you post such nonsense. If you can't understand those concepts, I suggest you ask someone (who has lots of patience) to carefully explain them to you.
            
            The system you are undermining with your unabashed ignorance, is the very system that protects you from a tyrannical government. I guarantee, when (not if) a future Democratic president issues an executive order you don't like, you'll be the first calling on the courts to protect you from the scary, overreaching, liberal president, thus adding hypocrisy to your list of accomplishments.
            
            I also remind you that Trump has pledged an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". By undermining the judicial branch for doing its job, Trump is attacking the Constitution rather than defending it, and so are you.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Good point, I was starting to feel trapped in Alice in Wonderland.
               
               Don't forget to challenge your king, I accept a few off with your heads rather than millions by guns and bombs.. About 1.6 billion Muslims won't go away.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  Jean Bakulaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You aren't trapped in Alice in Wonderland, you are trapped in George Orwell's 1984. "Doublespeak" is alternative fact, etc. It took me two weeks to order it from Amazon, I couldn't find my old copy from HS (I never throw out books). I guess a lot of other people were thinking like me. Oops, better get ready for Fahrenheit 451.
                  
                  These people who follow Trump really believe all his double talk, and accept it as truth. The updated version of 1984 has a long psychological essay about how the characters in the book began to believe the lies, and another essay about the language they spoke. Will start to read it tonight, I don't recall all of it! Can't wait.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, 1984, written with amazing visions and foresight. Many of them happening in the 21 century. Sometimes the adult cartoons Simpson and South Park impress me.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        Jean Bakulaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Love both of those shows! Not sure if South Park is on anymore, the The Simpsons still are.

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           One of my artist visited these south parks guys before they got on the air. He asked is this all legal? Ever since each year afterwards. they 
                           Had battled to stay on the air or not.
                           They sure hit my funny bone with wit.
                           
                           First started out as an 3D animator, today my daughter is s professional animator.

                           replyreport
            2. 78

               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Really, who is ignorant of the Constitution? The separation of power has no bearing in this particular issue. It is the power of the executive to determine immigration and border control and national security. You have allow your own bias to creep in. There are plenty of liberal judges who will interpret the Constitution to suit their agenda. That does not make them right. They are overruled time and again and in the case of the 9th circuit, most liberal court, 80% of the time over turned by the Supreme court.
               You need to brush up on your civics 101...

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Its all pretty simple really , Trump will write ANOTHER  executive order with the proper legality !
                  
                  Watch the liberal heads explode !
                  

                  replyreport
               2. 78

                  Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Read these words carefully, so that you may understand them:
                  
                  No - president - has - unlimited - power.
                  
                  That applies to everything, including immigration and national security.
                  
                  Do you understand that? I can't make it any simpler.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     President are nearly legal according to paper chase.
                     
                     They are beyond God with a licence to steal and kill. I say get rid of both hierarchy systems on the top level only.

                     replyreport
                  2. 78

                     jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     No one claimed unlimited power on everything... just on certain parts. It is odd you had no problem when Obama issued order after order (unconstitutional, not by my words by by the Courts and by his own words), and now it is Trump, everything is bad...Can't you just see your own bias at work here. Be honest, don't wave the Constitution when it suits you...

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Obama took the same risks with the possibility of the courts overturning his EOs. So now that Trump gets his a$$ in the wringer, we can all assume that he is above the law and can not be held accountable by the courts?
                        
                        Indeed.......

                        replyreport
                     2. 78

                        Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        You seem to be having trouble comprehending the word everything. Everything means EVERY thing (that's why I used it). It doesn't mean the president has unlimited power for "certain parts". Let me spell it out further:
                        
                        No - branch - of - government - has - unlimited - power - over - anything.
                        
                        They are all limited by each other, the Constitution, and ultimately the people.
                        
                        Do you understand that?
                        
                        It's important you do, because it's a key concept for this system of government.
                        
                        The separation of powers comes into it because even though they overlap, the three branches of government are:
                        
                        SEPARATE. This means, a president cannot decide how a judge rules a case, judges cannot decide what laws Congress create, Congress cannot decide what orders a president gives, and so on.
                        
                        but
                        
                        EQUAL. This means a judge can rule an order given by the president is unconstitutional, the president can nominate federal and supreme court judges, Congress can reject the president's choices for judges, the president can veto a law proposed by Congress, Congress can vote against a law supported by the President, judges can rule a law created by Congress is unconstitutional and so on.
                        
                        Even orders given in a time of war can (and have been) judged on whether they are constitutional by the judiciary. Even martial law is subject to limitation.
                        
                        Do you understand why the founding fathers designed the system of government this way? Again, this is a key concept.
                        
                        
                        
                        __________________________________________________________
                        
                        In terms of Obama, the same can be said in reverse. It is odd you had a problem if Obama issued an order that was unconstitutional, but now it is Trump, everything is fine...Can't you just see your own bias at work here. Can't you just see your own bias at work here. Be honest, don't ignore the Constitution when it suits you...
                        
                        But here's the difference as far as I see it. When the judiciary ruled against Obama, regardless of whether he liked it or not, he didn't question the professionalism of the judges, or act as if the judges have no right to question him, or cry on Twitter like a giant man-baby. That's a big difference.
                        
                        I don't know what the outcome of this case will be, but I know that the judiciary, as a SEPARATE and EQUAL branch of government, is well within its rights to judge whether the orders of a sitting president are constitutional, [b]in any area they feel it is warranted[/i]. If you don't believe that, then you know nothing of this system of government, and you need to go read more.

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Don"t lecture me about the Constitution. I know it better than most and I am Constitutionalist first and foremost. I write about it on HubPages for quite a while.
                           If Trump over steps his powers, I will be the first to object and call him out. Unlike some on the left, I am consistent. I did the same under Obama and will continue to do so for any President past and future. The selective nature of some on the left including you is that you seem to have a double standard. When a democrat is in office all is well but a Republican will get the extra scrutiny...
                           Thr bias is on the left and not with me. The press and Academia and hollywood in collusion have taken the country off course for quite a while. It is time for Americans to stand up for our values and not a globalist view.

                           replyreport
                        2. 78

                           jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Don, just give you one example where the power of the president is absolute. The power of pardon. A president can issue a pardon for anyone including murderers if he choose to and there is nothing a Court can do about it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              If you don't like being lectured about the Constitution, don't make ignorant comments about the Constitution. If you have written hubs about it, you should know that the founding fathers designed the system of government like this precisely because of the limitations it imposed.
                              
                              As for pardons:
                              
                              "[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" (Article II, Section II, The Constitution of the United States)(1).
                              
                              That's a limitation.
                              
                              "Civil liability cannot be excused"(U.S. Constitution Online)(2)
                              
                              That's another limitation.
                              
                              "Contempts of court cannot be pardoned, as they are offenses against the dignity of the court . . ."(U.S. Constitution Online)(3)
                              
                              That's another limitation.
                              
                              Just so you understand: "Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those adjudicated in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President" (Department of Justice)(2)
                              
                              Do you understand that this is a limitation?
                              
                              Just to be clear:
                              
                              "lim·i·ta·tion:
                              noun
                              1.
                              a limiting rule or circumstance; a restriction".
                              
                              Like I said: No - branch - of - government - has - unlimited - power - over - anything.
                              
                              And I'm not interested in your rants about bias. You have no justification for saying "you had no problem when Obama issued order after order". You don't know me. If you want to know what I think about actions by the Obama administration that were ruled unconstitutional, ask me. Don't assume to know what I think about it, because of some pre-judged idea you have about what people on "the left" think. That's bias.
                              
                              The key difference between the Obama administration's response to legal judgements, and Trump's response is revealing. Regardless of what he thought of a judgement, Obama didn't question the professional integrity of the judges that ruled against him. He understood that the three branches of government are separate but equal, and the judges were simply doing the job the founding fathers created for them.
                              
                              (1) https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ … transcript
                              (2)(3) http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html
                              (4) https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-i … structions

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Ok, I am asking. Which of Obama's executive action you have a problem with? Don't forget he claims to be a Constitutional law professor.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Your bias/slip is showing. You are not the impartial participant in the forum that you like to think that you are. Barack Obama can prove his academic record which obviously Trump questioned then and you appear to question now. Why is that, is it  because he is of a fine progressive pedigree? What are your academic credentials relative to Constitutional Law?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Credence2, I guess you missed my sarcasm. President Obama is a Constitutional law professor and yet he issues many executive orders knowing full well they were unConstitutional and put our courts system into a knot while no one on the left had any complaint.
                                       Now, Trump is president and all the left could do is use all tactics to stop him from doing what he campaigned on doing. Including with an activist court and a lying press.
                                       Yes I am biased and proud of it. I am biased for the rule of law and equal justice and American soverignty and mostly for the American Constitution.

                                       report
                                       1. 75

                                          Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          If the right can complain , why not the left, where is the beef?.
                                          
                                          Where there are two different city judges complaining about Trump. These judges have more experience and like there job.
                                          
                                          Where on both account Trump has had a few weeks at being President and I think he does not like it. Because his staff already looks so sick and tired from many mega cluster fu_ks.
                                          
                                          Kinda like how I felt working for him.

                                          report
                                          1. 80

                                             Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             Castle, after having been 'stiffed' by Trump, you probably know him better than most.

                                             report
                                             1. 75

                                                Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                No shame on me the first time, now it's the Americans turn.

                                                report
                                          2. 78

                                             jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             As you may know, I am not a fan of Trump either. I didn't vote for him or Hillary. However, I like to be consistent and expect others to be as well when it comes to our laws and public policy. I don't like the double standards some here and in the press and elsewhere when it comes to Democrats in power vs. Republicans in power. The law should be the law, applied equally... Obama get a pass on everything and yet, it's been only 3 weeks and we are facing unprecedented push back. Our system have been perverted by politics and we need to stop. The only thing we can fall back on is the Constitution. When I see judges who doesn't know their Constitutional duties and a divided Supreme Court 4-4 on party lines, we have a serious problem in this country. I don't know what the answer is but we need to clean house by passing term limits for Congress and for judges.

                                             report
                                             1. 75

                                                Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                Trump poli-tricked many of the Republican into a delustion he is going to drain the swamp. The Zionist run the Congress the capital, the media , the Israel project, and the Bank's.
                                                
                                                They needs wars to distract from the Country economic collapseing. To extend their desperate cause is to back their toilet paper dollar by stealing Muslims Countries oil. Mean wail their fracking pollution oil in US, needs to catch up. They need to be number 1 in something other than prisons, war, terror and angels. The real civil war has not started yet until  much of their money is removed from the public bank accounts..
                                                Only 1% of Americans are prepared for what is to come.

                                                report
                                 2. 78

                                    Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Happy to tell you. But first:
                                    
                                    Do you understand that the president's power to pardon is in fact limited?
                                    
                                    Do you understand how, and why, the three branches of government are separate but equal?
                                    
                                    Do you understand how, and why, a judge has every right to make a ruling on any executive order a president makes?
                                    
                                    These concepts are important. If you don't understand them, you are unlikely to be able to have a sensible conversation about the constitutionality of executive orders.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Yes, I do understand the limitations you cited but I disagree respectfully on the judge's intervention on the President's executive order in this particular case. The fact it is an executive order for a temporary period of 90 days restricted to 7 countries is in itself a limit No? 
                                       If we allow unelected judges to second guess commander in chief in the area of national security, we will end up with a non functioning grid lock government. It was never the intent of the Constitution.
                                       
                                       Let me repeat my scenario and let you decide -
                                       Suppose the President receive the daily briefing and it highlight new intelligence of a terrorist plot coming form one of these 7 countries. He issues an executive order for a temporary ban...
                                       Why is this unConstitutional by your definition?
                                       Remember, the judge in Seattle does not have the same intelligence info. Why should he intervene in this case? Now the court decides to postpone the order until further legal wrangering...
                                       Meanwhile, a terrorist act takes place and some American lives are lost...
                                       What is the responsibility of all the parties involved?
                                       Could the President be impeached for not fulfilling his first duty to protect American citizens and the homeland? Given the prior warning...
                                       What responsibility the judge in seattle have? Or the 9th circuit panel of 3 judges?
                                       You see, I fully understand the Constitution and all 3 branches have limits.
                                       
                                       Getting back to my original question to you?
                                       What did you think of Obama's executive action on amnesty? This was issued after the 2014 mid term election... Prior to that, he insisted he was not a King and therefore did not have the authority...
                                       Yet, after the election, he issued it anyway. Why did he do it?
                                       He clealrly over stepped his authority because he is the executive that carries out laws and cannot change existing laws, right?
                                       My point is not all executive orders are the same, some executive order is unConstitutional and it took a judge in a this case to correct this, and the Supreme Court agreed.
                                       
                                       By your extreme definition of limits, nothing is off the table. That is not what the Constitution said.
                                       If you want to learn more about the Constitution, I wrote a hub here -
                                       https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/American-Civics-101
                                       You might want to brush up on your civics before engage in a debate.

                                       report
                                       1. 78

                                          Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          I'm glad we established there are limits on the powers of pardon. As I said no branch of government has unlimited power on anything.
                                          
                                          Are you interested in a hypothetical "scenario" or reality? I'm interested in reality. Read the court's published order denying the stay. It explains the reality:
                                          
                                          "The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury."
                                          
                                          "Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years."(1)
                                          
                                          Do you understand what the court is saying? The government had the opportunity to explain why it thinks an immediate ban is necessary. It failed to do so.
                                          
                                          Now if the ban were due to "new intelligence of a terrorist plot", then the government has acted recklessly in failing to disclose that (privately if necessary) to the court so it can make an informed decision.
                                          
                                          If it's not the result of a specific threat, then there is no reason not to halt the ban while the case goes through the courts.
                                          
                                          (1) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ … -35105.pdf
                                          __________________________________
                                          
                                          Regarding Obama. I liked what the president was trying to achieve (allowing millions of people to contribute more fully to a society they have already lived and worked in for years), but it should never have been an EO. Congress should have been able to agree something and progress the issue.
                                          
                                          Congress is broken, but trying to bypass it by pushing the boundaries of the president's office won't fix it. It will only undermine the Constitution. No one should be happy with that. The country doesn't need more court cases. It needs Congress functioning properly. If things can't get done because Congress is broken, then fix Congress! This is one area I think left and right could actually agree on. Who doesn't think Congress is broken? Unfortunately there is so much tribalism in politics today, people won't focus on common ground. Instead they spend their time making up "fun" partisan memes.

                                          report
                                          1. 78

                                             jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             I'm sorry but I don't want one appointed judge second guess our national security. Does he have security clearance? Just because there were no terrorist act attributed to those 7 countries is not enough to prevent the next attack? Do you think ISIS is that stupid. It is this kind of thinking that is reactive rather than proactive. This issue is a very simple one. It has nothing to do with a religious ban. It is a temporary ban from countries that are in disarray and might allow terrorist to ifiltrate our country.
                                             
                                             Let me make it more personal. If your family member was a victim of a terrorist act tomorrow and it was found to be from one of those 7 countries, how would you feel?
                                             I can tell you my reaction, I would blame that judge personally for contributing to that evil act. He would have blood on his hands.
                                             I would have a difficulty explaining what happened to any child with a brain, how could this happen?
                                             The perversion of our Constitution is mind boggling. When will people wake up, will it take another 9/11?

                                             report
                                             1. 75

                                                Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                When we see two planes blow up three buildings, we will be on top of them this time. Duh.
                                                
                                                The third plane (inside job) did not make it to its phony baloney destination.

                                                report
                                             2. 78

                                                Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                *sigh* The judges did not "second-guess" the government. They told them to explain why the ban had to be immediate. The government said nothing. Evidently, they have no reason for the immediacy of the ban, other than wanting to ban Muslims "legally" (as Giuliani says).
                                                
                                                And there is no need for security clearance. The government can indicate whether the decision was based on intelligence of a specific threat without disclosing classified information. The fact it didn't means either: a) the government withheld a key piece of information from a federal court that would help it make an important legal decision, or b) the decision to order the ban was not based on intelligence of a specific threat. Take your pick.
                                                
                                                An executive order should not be immune from scrutiny by the judiciary just because it's about "national security". A president could claim almost anything is being done in the name of "national security".
                                                
                                                And forgive my bluntness, but your continuous "what if . . ." scenarios are childish. The president's decisions must be based on evidence, not irrational fear. You and your family are more likely to be killed by gun crime, than by terrorism (both at home and abroad). That is a simple fact.
                                                
                                                
                                                
                                                As gun crime is clearly a greater risk to public safety than terrorism, should the president issue an executive order declaring a 90 day national curfew and ban on sale of firearms, while he reviews the matter? If not, why not?

                                                report
                                                1. 78

                                                   jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Don, my scenerio is a real possibility, you can choose to ignore it or whitwash it.
                                                   The argument of gun violence is moot. You don't understand the 2nd Amendment and why it is there in the first place.
                                                   If that argument holds, why not ban cars, car accidents kill more people everyday?
                                                   
                                                   I can see we are getting no where. I don't wish to continue this back and forth.I think we have beaten this to death.
                                                   We just have to agree to disagee and let the consequences play out.
                                                   
                                                   It has been educational for me. How TDS can affect average people in such a way...

                                                   report
                                                   1. 78

                                                      Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                      jackclee, you or your family being shot is a real possibility too. More so than terrorism.
                                                      
                                                      The second amendment? Why should we care about that? Gun crime is an issue of national safety and security. Guns are pouring into the country. It's very bad!
                                                      
                                                      Let me make it more personal. If your family member was a victim of a shooting tomorrow and it was found an illegal gun was used, how would you feel? I can tell you my reaction, I would blame that judge personally for contributing to that evil act. He would have blood on his hands.
                                                      
                                                      Why should we let judges second guess the president's actions on gun crime? This is a matter of national security. The president has access to information the judges don't have. His powers to act in this area should be unlimited. If we allow unelected judges to second guess the commander in chief in this area, we will end up with a non functioning grid lock government.
                                                      ___________________________________________
                                                      
                                                      This is your exact argument applied to an executive order intended to ban the sale of firearms.
                                                      
                                                      It gives your exact reasons, stated in this thread, for why the courts should not be allowed to intervene to halt an executive order effectively banning the sale of firearms, presented as a matter of national security.
                                                      
                                                      If you think this argument is wrong, then you need to have a little chat with . . . yourself.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 78

                                                         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Don, You have a poor understanding of the 2nd Amendment and I can't teach you in a few words. The main reason for the 2nd Amendment is self defense and to prevent a tyrannical government...Do you understand that? Yes we need gun control and keep it out of criminals and the criminal insane. To equate that with terrorists is a stretch. If we can prevent or reduce terrorists coming to our country, we have every right to do so. Those that have guns rightfully under the Constitution is not the problem. The criminals that get guns and commit crimes are the problem. The laws restricting guns will not reduce any guns from criminals who doesn't abide by the law anyway? right?

                                                         report
                                                         1. 78

                                                            Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                            jackclee, you have a poor understanding of the first and fourteenth amendments and I can't teach you in a few words. The main reason for the first amendment is freedom of speech and to prevent the government favoring or disfavoring one religion over another. The main reason for the fourteenth is to establish that everyone within the jurisdiction of the US (including legal immigrants) has equal protection of the law. Do you understand that? Yes we need to combat terrorism, and keep people who wish to do harm out of the country. But those people who wish to travel to the US for business, education and personal reasons are not the problem. The criminals that want to commit acts of terrorism are the problem. The ban restricting everyone from entering will not reduce the threat from terrorists who don't abide by the law anyway? right?
                                                            
                                                            ______________________________________________________
                                                            
                                                            That is your argument against a firearms ban, applied to the Muslim ban.
                                                            
                                                            Do you understand what is happening? If not, let me break it down for you.
                                                            
                                                            Your argument that people should not be allowed to challenge a Muslim ban imposed by executive order, supports the view that people should not be allowed to challenge a firearms ban imposed by executive order.
                                                            
                                                            Your argument that people should be allowed to challenge a firearms ban imposed by executive order, supports the view that people should be allowed to challenge a Muslim ban imposed by executive order..
                                                            
                                                            So, at this point, you are essentially arguing with yourself.
                                                            
                                                            The jackclee who is against a firearms ban is arguing with the jackclee who believes the president should have unlimited powers on public safety. And the jackclee who is in favor of a Muslim ban, is arguing with the jackclee who is against a firearms ban.
                                                            
                                                            You're trying to say a firearms ban is different to a ban on Muslims, but Just as you can argue people's second amendment rights are being violated in the case of a firearms ban, it can be argued that the first (establishment clause) and fourteenth (due process and equal protection clauses) are being violated by a Muslim ban. And if you want to argue that the second amendment is somehow special, again it can also be argued that the first and fourteenth amendments are special too for various reasons.
                                                            
                                                            So it comes down to this. Either it is okay to potentially violate the Constitution if it involves public safety or it isn't. If it's not okay, then a Muslim ban in the name of public safety should be challenged for any potential violation. If it is okay, that means a firearms ban in the name of public safety is acceptable. You can't have it both ways. That would not only be a double standard, but also also be a contradiction.

                                                            report
                                                            1. 78

                                                               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                               Don, I was going to let go but I will make an execption in this case.
                                                               Your analogy is false because you call the EO a Muslim ban and it is not. If it was, all other countries which have muslims as majority would be included in this ban? Would they not?
                                                               So you have created a false comparison and failed miserably.
                                                               My understanding of the Constitution is deeper than you might think.
                                                               If you are interested, I wrote a hub on it just to instruct people who may not have learne it in school -
                                                               https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/American-Civics-101
                                                               Think of it as a primer.
                                                               Have a great day.

                                                               report
                                                               1. 78

                                                                  Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                                  You call the EO a firearms ban and it is not. If it was, all firearms would be included in this ban, not just assault style weapons? Would they not? It is merely a temporary suspension of sales for specific weapons, while the administration looks into the issue of gun crime, as a matter of public safety. What's so bad about that?
                                                                  __________________________________________
                                                                  
                                                                  You clearly don't get that whatever you say in support of the intended Muslim ban, can come straight back at you as an argument for an intended firearms ban.
                                                                  
                                                                  Like I said, you are essentially arguing with yourself at this point.
                                                                  
                                                                  I would "let go" in that situation too. It's probably for the best.

                                                                  report
                                                               2. 80

                                                                  Misfit Chickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                                  Trump originally proposed it as a Muslim ban. Now you're all MAD that we're using his own words. That is exactly what it is meant to be: keep the 'bad Muslims' that you're all afraid of, out. There is absolutely no other reason for it.
                                                                  
                                                                  One of the reasons why it didn't stick is because the judges said that Trump's administrataion didn't do enough to prove that kind of emergency action for the country was needed. All they have to present to a court is their shrill fake-news BS. Unfortunately, courts are supposed to take things all the way down to the FACTS - not alternative, hear-say ones.
                                                                  
                                                                  We have a system of checks & balances so that no one branch gets too much power or screws up too badly - and the Judicial Branch just did its job. For eight years we've had no outside terrorist attacks in this country - thanks in large part to people doing their jobs well enough under a very capable Obama.
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                                  

                                                                  report
                                                                  1. 0

                                                                     ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                                     What not many on the left especially , DO NOT GET  is  what ARE the facts ?   The media is so tweaked  away from truth that FACT is no longer FACT !
                                                                     
                                                                     I'm sure that's what Spicer was saying , Try to comprehend the English language beyond  the words themselves !

                                                                     report
                                                2. 89

                                                   wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   That's pretty great, isn't it, that our Homeland Security has held terrorism deaths to such a low value, instead of the 50,000 per year it would be without them?  Perhaps we need to re-think this whole "secrecy" thing and simply give them the power to do whatever they wish.  Hang the courts; if they can accomplish what they have with their hands tied, think what they could do if we turned them loose!
                                                   
                                                   The implication here is that we should stop our efforts to control terrorism in the US and put the army to work in Chicago - to turn the army loose, bomb the city into rubble and stop the death toll from American criminals.  As there were more than 20 times as many people killed by bare hands, by American citizens, we should just do away with Americans and let the terrorists in as they wish. 
                                                   
                                                   The fallacy is obvious; you are comparing apples and oranges, as usual.

                                                   report
   3. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The ninth circuit is the most reversed court in the country - given that it is not surprising that a liberal agenda is more important that the security of the nation.  Don't see that the Constitution plays a part as all they have done is say that the government is not a clear winner there.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         It may be the most reversed court in the country, but two out of the three judges are Republicans.
         
         I would be curious to see over what period of time the reversals took place and whether both Republicans were on the bench for that entire period.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Ever heard of RINOs?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Of course. A RINO is any Republican who is not an extremist obsessed with an outdated ideology. I'm one of them.
               
               In today's environment, Ronald Reagan, whom I voted for, would be called a RINO.

               replyreport
         2. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Not really up on it, but I get the distinct impression that the GOP hates that court and has for a long time.

            replyreport
   4. 91

      lions44posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I urge everyone to just read the opinion in full and you'll see why they made that decision. If you want to skim it, start on page 12 and read through 15.  Page 13 talks about the "unreliability" of the act.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952. Trump is solid on the law to ban terrorists.  Carter and Obama used it. 
         
         The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952)
         
         ADDED: 
         
         (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
         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.
         *  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-20 … ec1182.htm

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Jean Bakulaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Colorfulone,
            But what you wrote doesn't say he can throw out people based on religious belief, or people with green cards, or passports. There were two cases of CHILDREN, one a brother and sister aged 4 and 5, and another about 4, sitting in a closed room in custody at the airport without their parents. They had to be traumatized. If that was my child, I would sue everybody's a$$e$ off.
            
            I want the country to be safe too. I don't see why Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the UAE aren't on that list.The 9/11 attackers all came from there. When Obama made the list of countries Trump is using, he said if people left the US to go to Europe and came back through any of the listed countries, there would be extra scrutiny and they may not be allowed back in the US.
            
            Our latest terrorists have been home grown.
            
            Again, Trump CAN win this. He just won't follow the rules. All he had to do in the first place is listen to how to write the Presidential Order correctly. He has to appeal now. But if it goes to the Supreme Ct. we only have 8 justices, thanks to illegal actions on the empty seat from the R's, so it could be deadlocked and the lower court ruling would stand. And, as you all say, it's a liberal court.
            
            How did Obama shred the Constitution? I know he didn't get authorization for drones. But he was a Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard, so I'm sure he was more familiar with law than we are.Bush W. didn't get approvals for things he did either, although he also had bad intelligence information. Trump's ego will ruin his presidency. If he went to the briefings and listened to all the resources available to him, there wouldn't be a crisis everyday. He picked a Cabinet who doesn't know what they are doing either. He spent today criticizing Nordstrom's for not selling Ivanka's clothing line (illegal to make $ on Presidency) and someone must have told him to stop saying nasty things about judges. It's all his own fault. He's a disaster.
            
            And I have 3 teachers in the family, and can't understand how Betsy Devose got to be in charge of public schools. She never attended a public school. She was never a teacher, principal or superintendent of a school. She only went to private schools. She just donated a few million bucks to the right people. The Swamp is thicker than it ever was.

            replyreport
      2. 81

         GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Hello Lions44, your suggestion that folks read the Court's opinion - before forming their own opinion of the Court's opinion, was good advice. At least in my opinion.
         
         I'm sure it was a typo, but the section you noted, (page 13), was about the 'unreviewability', (or could that typo have been a spellchecker mis-click?), of the President's actions involving the issuance of the Executive Order.
         
         From the judge's perspective, (via the Opinion), and most of the 'Constitutional scholars' and law scholars that are supporters of Trump's EO, this was the government's strongest defense of the EO. Based on this aspect alone, I think the Court got it right.
         
         I do agree that the president does have valid Constitutional and legal power to issue such an immigration order, just as his supporters claim, but I disagree that the application of that power, (the order itself), is not reviewable. It must be, or we lose a vital check in our system.
         
         I think the government has strong validation for the President's authority to issue such an order, so the construction of the EO must have been a real mess.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            GA, your point is well made. I heard several attorneys last night say that Trump should simply write a better order. But they also agree that his ego would prevent him from doing so.

            replyreport
   5. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      80 % percent of the ninth courts decisions are overturned eventually !  Ultimately it will  change with appeals .

      replyreport
   6. 80

      Misfit Chickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      LoL! I'll take a ruling by judges who are actually knowledgable about constitutional law over T-fans reading the Constitution as a hobby any day. You've put all your faith in someone who has about as much experience in that office as you do.
      
      The fact is, IF there is any kind of 'attack' on our shores after this incident - it will probably be by someone who is already here that Trump has p*ssed off. Neither Trump nor his supporters are capable of admitting when someone else might be right.
      
      Oh yeah, terrorists can try to come through Canada as thru Mexico or any other way - and they almost did. Both sides might enjoy this article from 1999, pre-911 while Clinton was still in office. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/199 … .year.html
      
      It talks about Bin Lauden, how they caught the guy who was headed toward blowing up the Space Needle - and a lot of other stuff. And yeah, it begins by talking about how unprepared we were at the time. There's always room for improvement. Trump's EO wasn't an improvement, it was an amateurish & dangerous provocation.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      replyreport
   7. 80

      Misfit Chickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This is the thing... Sure, we should be doing everything we can to protect ourselves, and maybe we even take things to the extremes when it becomes necessary. But, the moment we allow ourselves to forget who we are - a very colorful & idealistically diverse group of people (one of our STRENGTHS); and when we start compromising our core values because of fear - they win, whoever 'they' is at the time.
      
      The truth is, the world is a scary place - its damn scary! You could step out into a crosswalk and get hit by a truck. BAM! You're dead! A tornado can blow your entire house away; or a tsunami could come and claim an entire coastline.
      
      You could be mowing your lawn and cross over into your neighbor's yard just a bit & p*ss him off - do that on one of his bad days, and he might do some inexplicitly crazy thing.
      
      Car accidents, plane crashes - not taking good enough care of yourself when you get the flu.
      
      Those are all things that could kill you.
      
      Precautions were taken long before Trump came into office. He should be reviewing & analyzing those things and THEN implementing whatever EO he thinks he still needs to based off of that information. He acts like he doesn't even talk to the people in the offices he is affecting before he does them - not just on immigration.
      
      He barged into office acting like a dictator instead of the leader of the FREE world. He seriously needs to adjust his attitude towards us; and so do his supporters who somehow view him as incapable of doing any wrong. Hell, very few of even Obama & Bush's supporters would say that they give them a 100% satisfaction rating.
      
      Find some balance in the attempt to see the broader perspective. Working WITH instead of AGAINST each other is the only way Trump & Co will ever make a considerable difference in this country or this world.
      
      Until that happens, we just have to hold out for four years until we can undo the damage he did. It is so damn expensive to keep going from one extreme to the other like that every four to eight years. Finding the middle ground and accomplishing things we can all be proud of - and continue to expound & perfect those things - isn't an impossiblity - or at least, it shouldn't be.
      
      
      
      

      replyreport
   8. 78

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Dear all hubbers, Thanks for weighing in on this important topic. I do think we have beaten this topic to death. I value opinion on all side even the ones I disagree. We are all learning here and I hope we are all in agreement that our country is the best in the world and we want to keep it that way.
      I will unfollow the forum from now on. My parting advice to all is to read your Constitution and learn it. It is for all citizens. Only 8000 words of English.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Misfit Chickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Good idea. I would imagine that the 'leaked' stuff coming out about Flynn & Trump's aides being in contact with Russians before he was elected isn't weighing in on this very well. How do you explain that away? Oh yeah, just claim it as fake news and insist that everyone who is concerned about it needs to get a grasp of the english language.
         
         T-fans are apparently incorrigible. I guess we'll just keep fighting for four years. That is as good of a way to spend four years as any, I suppose. Frankly, if this turns out to be the irrefutable case - he should be impeached based on just on that one thing.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You are free to do as you please...
            Just remember, you said nothing about Obama's actions in his 8 years -
            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … residency/
            These scandals happened under his watch and no one thought of impeaching him...
            I guess that is the double standards these days.
            You can do your best to oppose Trump. It is the American way.
            I look forward to you joining the Liberal TEA party.
            Perhaps you will win back political power in 4 years or 8.
            It is the democratic process at work.

            replyreport
2. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 7 years ago

   The courts interpret the law.  The president should accept what they determine.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If it were that simple there would be no appeals possible.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Except when your president is a Democrat.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Nope, regardless.  I'm an independent, anyway.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Sure but you're a leftist, and so Obama went unscathed by you when he was circumventing the separation of powers by pushing out a bunch of executive orders that you agreed with.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               PhoenixVposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               The sudden love affair with Courts and Judges will quickly evaporate when the wind blows in another direction.  Give it a minute.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  A symptom of a Megolomanic is to create as many fires as they can in disorder to baffle and confuse the majority. Your busy putting out one fire and do not have enough time to investigate because your onto a bigger fire. Like a hand to ball- shell game.

                  replyreport
3. 60

   terra gazelleposted 7 years ago

   The Judiciary is  a co equal to the Executive branch. And they are to make sure that all laws are according to the Constitution..no one is above the law. Including Trump....maybe he should have read the constitution before running.
   NO president is king..
   
   Trump decided to  create chaos...we will see what good it does.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It is not what Christians believe, like the apocalypse, that really matters. It's what Steve Bannon/Trump on what is going to happens. They think it is going to happen, they will make the Apocalypse happen. Or something must happen to them.

      replyreport
4. 74

   Oztinatoposted 7 years ago

   Attacks on the courts and free Press are a serious symptom of a facist mentality.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But who is doing the attacking? You could say the press have been attacking Trump even before his election. It seems to me, it cuts both ways. He is defending himself by attacking them back.

      replyreport