|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns!
???
I'm not seeing the problem with this.
|
On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this.
There is no problem with this at all. Lawyers often use the legislature’s own words to determine their intent. The difference this time is the Trump camp tried to pull some sort of bait and switch with the EO while telling everyone they were doing it. The plan was staggering is its stupidity.
|
On May 10 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. There is no problem with this at all. Lawyers often use the legislature’s own words to determine their intent. The difference this time is the Trump camp tried to pull some sort of bait and switch with the EO while telling everyone they were doing it. The plan was staggering is its stupidity.
I was referring more to Danglars "threat" of holding future Presidents accountable to their election campaign.
Like, how is that even an argument and not a bare minimum standard?
|
On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this.
The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others.
|
On May 10 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others.
It feels like you are saying intent has no value. Why do you think intent has no value here?
|
On May 10 2017 00:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. There is no problem with this at all. Lawyers often use the legislature’s own words to determine their intent. The difference this time is the Trump camp tried to pull some sort of bait and switch with the EO while telling everyone they were doing it. The plan was staggering is its stupidity. I was referring more to Danglars "threat" of holding future Presidents accountable to their election campaign. Like, how is that even an argument and not a bare minimum standard?
I know. I was just pointing out that this type of legal reasoning isn’t new or out of place. It is older than the US court system. It takes some mental gymnastics to think that a different standard is being applied to Trump. The main difference here is that Trump has no filter and a law maker needs to choose his/her words carefully. He cant and it hurts him in court.
|
On May 10 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others. It feels like you are saying intent has no value. Why do you think intent has no value here?
No, it asks far too much interpretation of a judge on comments made on the campaign trail. Candidates say all kinds of foolhardy shit to rally their base and stake positions. Putting future limits on their constitutional executive power premised on how they ran their campaigns is a foolhardy exercise. It will just lead to candidates speaking to the public but watching their words for how some black-robed guy might construe them to mean. See my longer reply and spoiler at previous page for more about why this insane precedent matters.
|
I mean, if we want to say intent doesn't matter with constitutionality I hope we can get that ACA Medicaid expansion brought into being ASAP. Coercion of states by the federal government as a concept is only possible if we allow ourselves to read intent into executive or legislative actions, after all-it could have been a totally unrelated Medicaid defunding then recreation.
|
There is a reason that Republican candidates already beat around the bush and never clearly stated they want to discriminate against black people (as an example). Because those words get used against you when you write laws that are designed to punish black people.
Trump scored points with racists by not beating around the bush and clearly stating he wants to punish Muslims.
And surprise, those words get used again him.
Its almost like many politicians know what their doing...
|
On May 10 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others.
I like how when talking about the judge that you agree with you show respect and say "The fourth circuit judge" while when referring to the one that shut down trumps racist ban you say "some judge."
|
On May 10 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others. It feels like you are saying intent has no value. Why do you think intent has no value here? No, it asks far too much interpretation of a judge on comments made on the campaign trail. Candidates say all kinds of foolhardy shit to rally their base and stake positions. Putting future limits on their constitutional executive power premised on how they ran their campaigns is a foolhardy exercise. It will just lead to candidates speaking to the public but watching their words for how some black-robed guy might construe them to mean. See my longer reply and spoiler at previous page for more about why this insane precedent matters.
your spoiler makes no sense because the example given has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It doesn't say "The President has to follow on his campaign promises" in the constitution after all.
Trumps EO comes dangerously close (or crosses into) treading on other peoples freedoms. It is close enough to be potentially unconstitutional. At which point it comes before the court and intent becomes a factor.
The obvious solution is to not draft EO's that are potentially unconstitutional when you have made public statements about wanting to commit those unconstitutional acts (like banning based on a religion).
|
On May 10 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others. It feels like you are saying intent has no value. Why do you think intent has no value here? No, it asks far too much interpretation of a judge on comments made on the campaign trail. Candidates say all kinds of foolhardy shit to rally their base and stake positions. Putting future limits on their constitutional executive power premised on how they ran their campaigns is a foolhardy exercise. It will just lead to candidates speaking to the public but watching their words for how some black-robed guy might construe them to mean. See my longer reply and spoiler at previous page for more about why this insane precedent matters.
I don't see any of your reasoning as a bad thing.
My ideal presidential campaign is a document with bullet points. In Mohdoo's perfect world, candidates would be confined to a youtube account and they would not be permitted to campaign otherwise.
|
On May 10 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others. It feels like you are saying intent has no value. Why do you think intent has no value here? No, it asks far too much interpretation of a judge on comments made on the campaign trail. Candidates say all kinds of foolhardy shit to rally their base and stake positions. Putting future limits on their constitutional executive power premised on how they ran their campaigns is a foolhardy exercise. It will just lead to candidates speaking to the public but watching their words for how some black-robed guy might construe them to mean. See my longer reply and spoiler at previous page for more about why this insane precedent matters.
So if Trump shoots someone dead on 5th avenue then it isn't murder?
|
On May 10 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others. It feels like you are saying intent has no value. Why do you think intent has no value here? No, it asks far too much interpretation of a judge on comments made on the campaign trail. Candidates say all kinds of foolhardy shit to rally their base and stake positions. Putting future limits on their constitutional executive power premised on how they ran their campaigns is a foolhardy exercise. It will just lead to candidates speaking to the public but watching their words for how some black-robed guy might construe them to mean. See my longer reply and spoiler at previous page for more about why this insane precedent matters.
They can resolve that problem by not promising things that not allowed under the Constitution, writing better laws and not having their supporters appear on TV saying “He asked me how to legally do this thing that isn’t allowed under the Constitution, so we did that.” I don’t know why this is shocking, because the first time he talked about everyone said it would violate the Constitution. Big shocker, that still holds true.
The problem for Trump is bad at governing, surrounds himself with people that are also bad at governing and are running up against people who more skilled than them by magnitudes.
|
Well, up until yesterday Trump's own official funded site said he was banning Muslim immigration, so I don't think it's terribly reasonable to say it was just a vague campaign promise.
But accountability was never his strong suit, considering that got deleted right after someone asked about it.
|
|
|
FBI Director James B. Comey overstated key findings involving the Hillary Clinton email investigation during testimony to Congress last week, according to people close to the inquiry.
In defending the probe, Comey offered seemingly new details to underscore the seriousness of the situation FBI agents faced last fall when they discovered thousands of Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s emails on the computer of her husband, Anthony Weiner.
“Somehow, her emails were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information,” Comey said, adding later, “His then-spouse Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him I think to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the secretary of state.”
At another point in the testimony, Comey said Abedin “forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information.’’
Neither of those statements is accurate, said people close to the investigation. The inquiry found that Abedin did occasionally forward emails to her husband for printing, but it was a far smaller number than Comey described, and it wasn’t a “regular practice,” these people said. None of the forwarded emails were marked classified, but a small number — a handful, one person said — contained information that was later judged to contain classified information, these people said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/comey-misstated-key-clinton-email-evidence-at-hearing-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/05/09/074c1c7e-34bd-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.7849907055a4
|
On May 10 2017 01:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:Well, up until yesterday Trump's own official funded site said he was banning Muslim immigration, so I don't think it's terribly reasonable to say it was just a vague campaign promise. But accountability was never his strong suit, considering that got deleted right after someone asked about it.
I like how they deleted it after it turned up in all the challenges to the EO, as if that would somehow undo the damage.
|
On May 10 2017 01:07 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 00:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! ??? I'm not seeing the problem with this. The fourth circuit judge must've been a great fool to ask if another president had written the exact same executive order, the other president would have signed a constitutional executive order rather than an unconstitutional one. But I posted the video and put forward my case half a dozen times already so feel free to read my responses to others. I like how when talking about the judge that you agree with you show respect and say "The fourth circuit judge" while when referring to the one that shut down trumps racist ban you say "some judge."
You mean when referencing a particular video versus referencing multiple judges and multiple executive orders? One's clarifying arguments in court, the other one is a judge crafting foreign policy.
|
On May 10 2017 01:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, if we want to say intent doesn't matter with constitutionality I hope we can get that ACA Medicaid expansion brought into being ASAP. Coercion of states by the federal government as a concept is only possible if we allow ourselves to read intent into executive or legislative actions, after all-it could have been a totally unrelated Medicaid defunding then recreation.
Let's get the whole ACA thrown out. I'll judge shop one that says Obama's "guns and religion" displays animus, and forcing nuns to pay for abortifacients is how that animus was shown. A judge using campaign statements for this establishment of intent is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
