|
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 10 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Except Obama's site never said "When I'm elected I will force people to let go of their guns and religion by passing the ACA." And it certainly didn't say it when Congress was passing the ACA.
But I'm glad you've successfully completely fallen off the slippery slope and lost track of key components of the analogy.
(for reference, if his site had said that, the ACA probably would not have stood up to the courts and I hope you would agree with it being struck down)
|
On May 10 2017 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote: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).
Please clarify what you're talking about/responding to in my spoiler and what you mean. I have no idea and there's several people commenting from different angles.
"Potentially unconstitutional" haha. The EO isn't potentially unconstitutional, which is one big aspect of my argument. The lawyer from the ACLU just told us the EO could've been signed into law by another and been totally constitutional.
|
On May 10 2017 01:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote: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. Except Obama's site never said "When I'm elected I will force people to let go of their guns and religion by passing the ACA." And it certainly didn't say it when Congress was passing the ACA. But I'm glad you've successfully completely fallen off the slippery slope and lost track of key components of the analogy. (for reference, if his site had said that, the ACA probably would not have stood up to the courts and I hope you would agree with it being struck down)
It doesn't matter. What matters is if the judge declares this is sufficient animus for me to reach this conclusion. That's the fun part about judge shopping.
|
Everyone: Intent matters, as has been the case in US law for many years
Danglars: No it doesn't
I mean, there's no conversation to be had.
|
Danglers is making a good case to be spicer's replacement whenever he inevitably gets canned.
|
On May 10 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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). Please clarify what you're talking about/responding to in my spoiler and what you mean. I have no idea and there's several people commenting from different angles. "Potentially unconstitutional" haha. The EO isn't potentially unconstitutional, which is one big aspect of my argument. The lawyer from the ACLU just told us the EO could've been signed into law by another and been totally constitutional.
Why are you linking stuff you don't read yourself?
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ThomasHCrown/status/842160141877293057
is utter horseshit as stated.
And as many people have already tried to explain, yes another President could have signed the EO (minus the obvious issue of denying legal residents entry into the US) and infact another President did, he was called Obama.
The difference was that he used actual lawyers to draft it, did not deny entry into the US for legal residents and did not publicly state he wanted to ban Muslims with said EO.
If he had done those things (like Trump stupidly did) it would have been struck down aswell.
|
On May 10 2017 01:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 10 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote: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. Except Obama's site never said "When I'm elected I will force people to let go of their guns and religion by passing the ACA." And it certainly didn't say it when Congress was passing the ACA. But I'm glad you've successfully completely fallen off the slippery slope and lost track of key components of the analogy. (for reference, if his site had said that, the ACA probably would not have stood up to the courts and I hope you would agree with it being struck down) It doesn't matter. What matters is if the judge declares this is sufficient animus for me to reach this conclusion. That's the fun part about judge shopping.
Funny how you never mentioned judge shopping until fox news did. Is that a coincidence? Or are both you and trump just big fans of parroting fox news and breitbart?
|
I'm just glad Danglars is on board with a future Congress passing a bill that 1) abolishes Medicaid and 2) creates SuperDuperMedicaid in every state that is required to cover everyone because intent and thus coercion are irrelevant.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
His argument is terrible on so many levels. Unlike bills and laws, EOs do not have public debates or hearings. So the only way to determine legislative intent is from the words of the executive office. Since this order was drafted and signed in the first 10 days of office, the campaign trail is the only place to find any hint of intent. That and Trumps own fundraising website that said he was going to ban Muslims up through the signing of the EO and beyond.
If president's don't want to deal with this, they keep their mouth shut and let their lawyers do the talking. But when you have no filter and are surrounded by the rejects of professional politics, you get a shitty law that gets challenged.
|
On May 10 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Everyone: Intent matters, as has been the case in US law for many years
Danglars: No it doesn't
I mean, there's no conversation to be had.
This is the first time on record that campaign statements have been used to ascertain intent and impute that intent to constitutionality of an Executive Order. Correct me if I'm wrong. So when people talk about intent, it's not even close to intent as shown in law throughout history.
On May 10 2017 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 23:06 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 22:35 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 21:08 ChristianS 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! You're still doing this weird ad absurdum thing. Nobody said that the order itself doesn't matter, just that intent can have real bearing on the case. Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case, it just also matters what your intent was. If you honestly thought you were shooting them with an airsoft gun but some insidious individual swapped it with a pistol, you're gonna get off a lot easier than if you've been carrying around a pistol with a single round for five years waiting for your chance. This isn't even really about whether the order is unconstitutional, it's just that getting self-righteous about the idea that intent could matter to the constitutionality of a law is an absurd thing to get self-righteous about. Hell, I think under current free exercise doctrine a law that happens to burden someone's free exercise is constitutional, but one specifically designed to target that religion is not. That means the same law could be constitutional or not based on whether the creators of a law can come up with a permissible rationale and convince the court that was their reason. To fully bear out the analogy, if those same lawmakers had campaigned on creating laws to persecute Jews, they're going to have a much harder time arguing that their law just happens to burden Jews' free exercise. I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe. But it's sending you on this weird crusade against "intent" ever mattering or being discussed in a court room, which I don't think you appreciate is a perfectly normal thing even in completely nonpartisan contexts. Well, I find it absolutely absurd that you can't see all the problems with constitutional executive authority being tied down to what some judge thinks your campaign rhetoric shows. And it has everything to do with the constitutional test. Orders are or aren't. We're not trying Trump for murder where mens rea and the various degrees impact law. It's the constitution and nowhere does it reserve certain powers to the branches only if some judge in a corner of the country thinks your rhetoric wasn't too divisive. And since you want to go there, I get that years of advocating for judges to write law turns you deaf to this kind of talk. I kind of expect you'd be singing a different tune if Obamacare was declared unconstitutional because Obama showed religious animus during the campaign and now he's making nuns pay for abortifascients. It does come down to disabusing ordinary Americans of notions about the peaceful transfer of power and whether we're a nation of laws or of men. I didn't bring up the analogy to murder, you did. No, zlefin brought it up, and you repeated it after I responded to him. So don't play games here, Mr. "Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case." And there's plenty of constitutional issues where intent matters too. I've already brought up one (free exercise doctrine); discrimination is clearly another. If the question is whether the order illegally discriminates against Muslims, how is it not relevant whether the author intended to use it to target Muslims?
If the analogy held I would be singing the same tune, but it doesn't. If during the campaign Obama had been stoking anti-Catholic fervor, and saying we need to force these papists to stop what they're doing by making it illegal, and when told that would be unconstitutional responding they'll do it by mandating everybody provide contraceptives that Catholics object to, that would certainly strengthen the case for ruling that unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.
I've never advocated for judicial activism and I'm not sure I'm in favor of a lot of recent instances of it. I strongly support gay marriage but I think Obergefell might have been on pretty shaky legal ground. But not that that's relevant anyway, you're just trying to score partisan points. When you said, "I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe," I knew we were already in the cheap partisan points of the argument phase, so restrain yourself if you'd like others to show restraint. It doesn't change the fact that constitutionally delegated powers are not prejudiced by campaign rhetoric: it's merely judges thinking they have scope over national security and foreign policy, when in reality the President has plenary authority in those areas. And yes, it is reductio ad absurdum, any judge can look at prior comments critical of religion from Obama and say that's intent and sorry, the law's unconstitutional. + Show Spoiler +Or, as a lawyer would put it: It is naive to think this stops here. They won't and can't beat forum shopping at the District Court and Circuit level, regardless of competence. A little-known aspect of American history is that we've mistrusted courts more or less since the beginning. The last time judges went nuts on us, we basically stripped common law down to existing precedent and equity. On the beginning of absurdity: I can understand the idea of slippery slope here, but I don't think this is slippery. I understand being cautious of it being slippery, but I don't think it is. I also just generally don't like the idea that knowledge and correctness can be ignored as a matter of procedure. If the intent of a law is considered important, as has been shown a million times, the person's words when advocating for it are super important.
Sorry if I'm not convinced by your "I understand you see a slippery slope here, but I don't see it. I understand caution, but I'm throwing caution to the wind."
I'm forgetting to relay some basics here. He signs this thing clearly saying this is to protect Americans from terrorists. Formerly, on the campaign trail, he not only talked about Muslim ban, but having to limit immigration until we figure out what the hell is going on. That there's a terrorist threat. Sorry, some judge's(TM) feeling that statements made months and years in advance make Trump have a bad motive here are just his feelings, not executive intent. Presidents aren't forever tainted by prior campaign positions so that intent is seized from thin air. He can write the law, say it's about terrorism, and a judge can make the determination if the text of the EO shows it's violating Muslim citizen's civil rights.
Or as the Virginia judge says (and man talk about another judge that must be an absolute dunce on intent in your argument):
In EO-2, the President has provided a detailed justification for the Order based on national security needs, and enjoining the operation of EO-2 would interfere with the President’s unique constitutional responsibilities to conduct international relations, provide for the national defense, and secure the nation
|
On May 10 2017 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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). Please clarify what you're talking about/responding to in my spoiler and what you mean. I have no idea and there's several people commenting from different angles. "Potentially unconstitutional" haha. The EO isn't potentially unconstitutional, which is one big aspect of my argument. The lawyer from the ACLU just told us the EO could've been signed into law by another and been totally constitutional. Why are you linking stuff you don't read yourself? + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ThomasHCrown/status/842160141877293057 is utter horseshit as stated. And as many people have already tried to explain, yes another President could have signed the EO (minus the obvious issue of denying legal residents entry into the US) and infact another President did, he was called Obama. The difference was that he used actual lawyers to draft it, did not deny entry into the US for legal residents and did not publicly state he wanted to ban Muslims with said EO. If he had done those things (like Trump stupidly did) it would have been struck down aswell.
Gorsameth, many posters have chosen to respond to my comments made after I posted the 4th circuit appeal court as it brings up challenges to Trump's executive order. If you can't play nice with "Why are you linking stuff you don't read yourself" after saying "your spoiler makes no sense because the example given has nothing to do with constitutional rights" in a long spoiler. If you want a response, and I'm guessing you don't, I'll just move on to the rest.
You're saying actual lawyers didn't draft Trump's EO?
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Oh, and he's never publicly stated he wanted to ban Muslims with said EO. Said EO wasn't even drafted.
|
On May 10 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Everyone: Intent matters, as has been the case in US law for many years
Danglars: No it doesn't
I mean, there's no conversation to be had. This is the first time on record that campaign statements have been used to ascertain intent and impute that intent to constitutionality of an Executive Order. Correct me if I'm wrong. So when people talk about intent, it's not even close to intent as shown in law throughout history.
Probably because this was the first time that a President was stupid enough to draft an EO without consulting the DoJ or the State Department on the legality of that EO.
There is no precedent because no one else has been stupid enough to attempt this.
|
On May 10 2017 01:39 Nevuk wrote:
Danglers is making a good case to be spicer's replacement whenever he inevitably gets canned.
I can't defend more than half of what Trump says and does. Spicer's got a terrible job. Even worse than Gibbs Carney & Earnest. But, the thread's focusing on the small percentage of stuff Trump does that I agree with, so I see how you feel that way.
|
On May 10 2017 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote: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.
Maybe you'd have a point if we were talking about the American people not electing him president based on being unconvinced this was really a terrorism point. I just don't want judges reading what he said a year or months ago on the campaign trail (oh, and candidates can change based on advisement) and reading the constitution to mean the judicial branch is that branch most intimately concerned with combating foreign terrorist threats.
|
On May 10 2017 01:43 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 01:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 10 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote: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. Except Obama's site never said "When I'm elected I will force people to let go of their guns and religion by passing the ACA." And it certainly didn't say it when Congress was passing the ACA. But I'm glad you've successfully completely fallen off the slippery slope and lost track of key components of the analogy. (for reference, if his site had said that, the ACA probably would not have stood up to the courts and I hope you would agree with it being struck down) It doesn't matter. What matters is if the judge declares this is sufficient animus for me to reach this conclusion. That's the fun part about judge shopping. Funny how you never mentioned judge shopping until fox news did. Is that a coincidence? Or are both you and trump just big fans of parroting fox news and breitbart?
Uhh conservatives have been critical of judge shopping for years. You can call it venue shopping or finding a favorable judge if you want. And I guarantee you've watched fox news more than I have in the past year.
On May 10 2017 01:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just glad Danglars is on board with a future Congress passing a bill that 1) abolishes Medicaid and 2) creates SuperDuperMedicaid in every state that is required to cover everyone because intent and thus coercion are irrelevant.
Hmm? Oh, you want to talk about entitlement reform. I'm all ears. I promise I won't use congressional campaign statements from 2016 to try to get your resulting legislation tossed out on constitutional grounds. I might use points brought up by congressmen in committee, because you see, I'm really a big fan of intent, as long as you don't draw it out to absurd lengths.
|
On May 10 2017 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Everyone: Intent matters, as has been the case in US law for many years
Danglars: No it doesn't
I mean, there's no conversation to be had. This is the first time on record that campaign statements have been used to ascertain intent and impute that intent to constitutionality of an Executive Order. Correct me if I'm wrong. So when people talk about intent, it's not even close to intent as shown in law throughout history. Probably because this was the first time that a President was stupid enough to draft an EO without consulting the DoJ or the State Department on the legality of that EO. There is no precedent because no one else has been stupid enough to attempt this.
The first one was absolute shit because of bad drafting. The second one was great and should've been the law of the land for its temporary duration had not a judge used his feelings to determine it had animus against Muslims and not, as Trump said, vital for national security. But I'm fairly sure Trump will win on appeal, if not at this circuit court, then at the supreme court. What's without precedent is how this judge thinks he was appointed to a bureau on foreign policy and national security.
|
On May 10 2017 02:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Everyone: Intent matters, as has been the case in US law for many years
Danglars: No it doesn't
I mean, there's no conversation to be had. This is the first time on record that campaign statements have been used to ascertain intent and impute that intent to constitutionality of an Executive Order. Correct me if I'm wrong. So when people talk about intent, it's not even close to intent as shown in law throughout history. Probably because this was the first time that a President was stupid enough to draft an EO without consulting the DoJ or the State Department on the legality of that EO. There is no precedent because no one else has been stupid enough to attempt this. The first one was absolute shit because of bad drafting. The second one was great and should've been the law of the land for its temporary duration had not a judge used his feelings to determine it had animus against Muslims and not, as Trump said, vital for national security. But I'm fairly sure Trump will win on appeal, if not at this circuit court, then at the supreme court. What's without precedent is how this judge thinks he was appointed to a bureau on foreign policy and national security.
Going to be a long wait but sure. lets come back to this when the verdict comes down from the SC.
i very much doubt it will happen tho.
|
On May 10 2017 02:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Everyone: Intent matters, as has been the case in US law for many years
Danglars: No it doesn't
I mean, there's no conversation to be had. This is the first time on record that campaign statements have been used to ascertain intent and impute that intent to constitutionality of an Executive Order. Correct me if I'm wrong. So when people talk about intent, it's not even close to intent as shown in law throughout history. Probably because this was the first time that a President was stupid enough to draft an EO without consulting the DoJ or the State Department on the legality of that EO. There is no precedent because no one else has been stupid enough to attempt this. The first one was absolute shit because of bad drafting. The second one was great and should've been the law of the land for its temporary duration had not a judge used his feelings to determine it had animus against Muslims and not, as Trump said, vital for national security. But I'm fairly sure Trump will win on appeal, if not at this circuit court, then at the supreme court. What's without precedent is how this judge thinks he was appointed to a bureau on foreign policy and national security.
The second one should have been stayed because the State should not benefit from being able rewrite laws mid litigation. It is overly burdensome to the challenging party and reeks of abuse. They can pass a new EO, but it should be enjoined with the stay covering the old EO.
|
Former President Barack Obama, speaking to an audience in Italy on Tuesday, urged citizens to participate in democracy and warned that “you get the politicians you deserve.”
“People have a tendency to blame politicians when things don't work, but as I always tell people, you get the politicians you deserve,” Obama said, to loud applause. “And if you don't vote and you don't pay attention, you'll get policies that don't reflect your interest.”
Obama was speaking in Milan at a summit on food innovation. He has spoken broadly about the democratic process in a handful of public appearances since the end of his tenure, and he devoted his good-bye address in Chicago to democracy and urging Americans to engage in politics.
The former president has largely refrained from commenting on President Donald Trump at his post-White House engagements so far, but it is no secret that Obama’s worldview contrasts with Trump’s sharply, and during the campaign, Obama repeatedly argued that Trump was uniquely unqualified for the presidency.
Politico
I totally agree with Obama here.
|
On May 10 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Former President Barack Obama, speaking to an audience in Italy on Tuesday, urged citizens to participate in democracy and warned that “you get the politicians you deserve.”
“People have a tendency to blame politicians when things don't work, but as I always tell people, you get the politicians you deserve,” Obama said, to loud applause. “And if you don't vote and you don't pay attention, you'll get policies that don't reflect your interest.”
Obama was speaking in Milan at a summit on food innovation. He has spoken broadly about the democratic process in a handful of public appearances since the end of his tenure, and he devoted his good-bye address in Chicago to democracy and urging Americans to engage in politics.
The former president has largely refrained from commenting on President Donald Trump at his post-White House engagements so far, but it is no secret that Obama’s worldview contrasts with Trump’s sharply, and during the campaign, Obama repeatedly argued that Trump was uniquely unqualified for the presidency. PoliticoI totally agree with Obama here.
I assume that would be pretty unanimous.
I don't see the relevance of this news...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
