|
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 03:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:36 Plansix wrote:
The key aspect of this argument is that Rudy Giuliani said on TV that the law was written to “ban Muslims” legally. If I remember correctly, this was after the EO was being enforced. That and Trump’s other statements and his own funding page cast this shadow of the EO and make it impossible to separate the intent from the language. You mean before Giuliani went on to say he was putting together a commission with lawyers and what came out was about nations and terror. I'm well able to believe Trump needed to be advised on where the threat of terrorism originates and the areas of the world where there's danger and evidence of it. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 Doodsmack wrote:
I can see the argument that the text of the order as written does not have the same effect as "ban the Muslims". But it does have the effect of "ban some Muslims". The promise of ban the Muslims was just so clear and simple and prominent that there's barely any room for interpretation. He can invent an alternative explanation of "national security and foreign policy" all he wants, but there's also the "ban some Muslims" explanation - and that's where the judicial comes in. At some point a campaign promise is prominent enough and has a direct enough link to the EO that you can't help but interpret it as the purpose of the EO. Hey, I think we have a believer in reading the text to ascertain whether or not it in-effect bans the Muslims based on their religion rather than pausing immigration from terror-prone nations for a specified period of time. This is another problem with the EO because they don’t’ really have a lot of evidence to show those regions were a huge risk over others that were not included. Or that the risk had increased since Trump took office. There needs to be a provable reason for the order to exist. No, there doesn't need to be a provable reason for the order to exist, as you outlined here. How do you even prove the evidence to doubters? You might criticize the President on which countries he and Obama thought were the worst offenders. You probably didn't vote for him, you might think the real threat is Chinese in origin etc etc the point is that it's well within Trump's executive power to make selections from a list of terrorist exporters and maybe next year change it to be less or more. The standard isn't prove it's not discrimination or you can't do it. Except you can’t deny someone the issuance of a Visa or bar them from entering the country based on race, religion or nationality based on a 1965 law. Congress further stated that do deny a specific person a visa based on terrorism, the government must provide evidence. The order addresses none of these core issues and provide no evidence why it should exist and visas should be denied. The president doesn’t get to override laws passed by congress through executive order, even for a limited period of time. And just to be clear, someone with a valid Visa cannot be denied entry to the US. Visas do not have an “on hold due to executive order” state. They are either valid or revoked. At risk of repeating myself, the standard is not that you must prove it's not race, religion, or nationality based on some standard of explaining that these countries matter to terrorism and these don't. You might not like the inclusion or exclusion of certain nations on Obama's list, but those are nations not religions. It's not a specific person on terrorism, it's persons from specific nations. He absolutely can stop the issuing of visas.
But then you have to further prove why these specific countries were cherry picked from a larger list. And then prove that the people who hold visas are a threat in some way. The order specifically revokes visas from that region without due process or providing evidence why those specific visas should be denied. This includes terrorism. Citing “Obama said these countries might be trouble” does not give the Trump administration the ability to ignore laws passed by congress or revoke visas and greencards on mass.
You keep shifting the burden of proof to the challengers. They only need to prove that the law denies due process for specific visa holders and the State has not provided sufficient evidence to deny the visa. The state has to prove why the visa is being taken away without going through the standard process for doing so.
|
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations.
|
On May 10 2017 03:16 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +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. I was being reasonable and pointing to well grounded principles of law and ethics. you are not, and are naysaying without an actual sound argument. you are trolling. please don't troll.
I'll try to put it into your terms. I didn't see an actual sound argument in the first place from you. This is presidential campaigning and I'm sad to say campaign promises don't always come true and Trump contradicts himself on a regular basis if you don't cherry pick your quotes.
|
On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations.
The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago.
|
On May 10 2017 03:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:36 Plansix wrote:
The key aspect of this argument is that Rudy Giuliani said on TV that the law was written to “ban Muslims” legally. If I remember correctly, this was after the EO was being enforced. That and Trump’s other statements and his own funding page cast this shadow of the EO and make it impossible to separate the intent from the language. You mean before Giuliani went on to say he was putting together a commission with lawyers and what came out was about nations and terror. I'm well able to believe Trump needed to be advised on where the threat of terrorism originates and the areas of the world where there's danger and evidence of it. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 Doodsmack wrote:
I can see the argument that the text of the order as written does not have the same effect as "ban the Muslims". But it does have the effect of "ban some Muslims". The promise of ban the Muslims was just so clear and simple and prominent that there's barely any room for interpretation. He can invent an alternative explanation of "national security and foreign policy" all he wants, but there's also the "ban some Muslims" explanation - and that's where the judicial comes in. At some point a campaign promise is prominent enough and has a direct enough link to the EO that you can't help but interpret it as the purpose of the EO. Hey, I think we have a believer in reading the text to ascertain whether or not it in-effect bans the Muslims based on their religion rather than pausing immigration from terror-prone nations for a specified period of time. This is another problem with the EO because they don’t’ really have a lot of evidence to show those regions were a huge risk over others that were not included. Or that the risk had increased since Trump took office. There needs to be a provable reason for the order to exist. No, there doesn't need to be a provable reason for the order to exist, as you outlined here. How do you even prove the evidence to doubters? You might criticize the President on which countries he and Obama thought were the worst offenders. You probably didn't vote for him, you might think the real threat is Chinese in origin etc etc the point is that it's well within Trump's executive power to make selections from a list of terrorist exporters and maybe next year change it to be less or more. The standard isn't prove it's not discrimination or you can't do it. Except you can’t deny someone the issuance of a Visa or bar them from entering the country based on race, religion or nationality based on a 1965 law. Congress further stated that do deny a specific person a visa based on terrorism, the government must provide evidence. The order addresses none of these core issues and provide no evidence why it should exist and visas should be denied. The president doesn’t get to override laws passed by congress through executive order, even for a limited period of time. And just to be clear, someone with a valid Visa cannot be denied entry to the US. Visas do not have an “on hold due to executive order” state. They are either valid or revoked. At risk of repeating myself, the standard is not that you must prove it's not race, religion, or nationality based on some standard of explaining that these countries matter to terrorism and these don't. You might not like the inclusion or exclusion of certain nations on Obama's list, but those are nations not religions. It's not a specific person on terrorism, it's persons from specific nations. He absolutely can stop the issuing of visas. But then you have to further prove why these specific countries were cherry picked from a larger list. And then prove that the people who hold visas are a threat in some way. The order specifically revokes visas from that region without due process or providing evidence why those specific visas should be denied. This includes terrorism. Citing “Obama said these countries might be trouble” does not give the Trump administration the ability to ignore laws passed by congress or revoke visas and greencards on mass. You keep shifting the burden of proof to the challengers. They only need to prove that the law denies due process for specific visa holders and the State has not provided sufficient evidence to deny the visa. The state has to prove why the visa is being taken away without going through the standard process for doing so.
No, so long as the countries present a severe terrorist threat, that's the standard. From the Virginia decision.
The Court rejects the Defendants’ position that since President Trump has offered a legitimate, rational, and non-discriminatory purpose stated in EO-2, this Court must confine its analysis of the constitutional validity of EO-2 to the four corners of the Order. The Court has therefore carefully assessed President Trump’s facially legitimate national security basis for EO-2 against the backdrop of all of the statements the President and his closest advisors have made.
This Court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent. And while the President and his advisors have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2, the Court cannot conclude for the purposes of the Motion that these statements, together with the President’s past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority.
|
On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago.
Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to.
|
On May 10 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:16 zlefin 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. I was being reasonable and pointing to well grounded principles of law and ethics. you are not, and are naysaying without an actual sound argument. you are trolling. please don't troll. I'll try to put it into your terms. I didn't see an actual sound argument in the first place from you. This is presidential campaigning and I'm sad to say campaign promises don't always come true and Trump contradicts himself on a regular basis if you don't cherry pick your quotes.
you didn't see an argument because you didn't look; it was quite clearly there, and quite clearly about intent. so you're still trolling. go away, you're not helping the thread or anyone. you're just ignoring the points raised to keep restating your unfounded beliefs.
PS it's a good thing campaign promises to violate the constitution and commit war crimes don't come true. don't know why you'd want them to /sarcasm
|
On May 10 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:23 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:36 Plansix wrote:
The key aspect of this argument is that Rudy Giuliani said on TV that the law was written to “ban Muslims” legally. If I remember correctly, this was after the EO was being enforced. That and Trump’s other statements and his own funding page cast this shadow of the EO and make it impossible to separate the intent from the language. You mean before Giuliani went on to say he was putting together a commission with lawyers and what came out was about nations and terror. I'm well able to believe Trump needed to be advised on where the threat of terrorism originates and the areas of the world where there's danger and evidence of it. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 Doodsmack wrote:
I can see the argument that the text of the order as written does not have the same effect as "ban the Muslims". But it does have the effect of "ban some Muslims". The promise of ban the Muslims was just so clear and simple and prominent that there's barely any room for interpretation. He can invent an alternative explanation of "national security and foreign policy" all he wants, but there's also the "ban some Muslims" explanation - and that's where the judicial comes in. At some point a campaign promise is prominent enough and has a direct enough link to the EO that you can't help but interpret it as the purpose of the EO. Hey, I think we have a believer in reading the text to ascertain whether or not it in-effect bans the Muslims based on their religion rather than pausing immigration from terror-prone nations for a specified period of time. This is another problem with the EO because they don’t’ really have a lot of evidence to show those regions were a huge risk over others that were not included. Or that the risk had increased since Trump took office. There needs to be a provable reason for the order to exist. No, there doesn't need to be a provable reason for the order to exist, as you outlined here. How do you even prove the evidence to doubters? You might criticize the President on which countries he and Obama thought were the worst offenders. You probably didn't vote for him, you might think the real threat is Chinese in origin etc etc the point is that it's well within Trump's executive power to make selections from a list of terrorist exporters and maybe next year change it to be less or more. The standard isn't prove it's not discrimination or you can't do it. Except you can’t deny someone the issuance of a Visa or bar them from entering the country based on race, religion or nationality based on a 1965 law. Congress further stated that do deny a specific person a visa based on terrorism, the government must provide evidence. The order addresses none of these core issues and provide no evidence why it should exist and visas should be denied. The president doesn’t get to override laws passed by congress through executive order, even for a limited period of time. And just to be clear, someone with a valid Visa cannot be denied entry to the US. Visas do not have an “on hold due to executive order” state. They are either valid or revoked. At risk of repeating myself, the standard is not that you must prove it's not race, religion, or nationality based on some standard of explaining that these countries matter to terrorism and these don't. You might not like the inclusion or exclusion of certain nations on Obama's list, but those are nations not religions. It's not a specific person on terrorism, it's persons from specific nations. He absolutely can stop the issuing of visas. But then you have to further prove why these specific countries were cherry picked from a larger list. And then prove that the people who hold visas are a threat in some way. The order specifically revokes visas from that region without due process or providing evidence why those specific visas should be denied. This includes terrorism. Citing “Obama said these countries might be trouble” does not give the Trump administration the ability to ignore laws passed by congress or revoke visas and greencards on mass. You keep shifting the burden of proof to the challengers. They only need to prove that the law denies due process for specific visa holders and the State has not provided sufficient evidence to deny the visa. The state has to prove why the visa is being taken away without going through the standard process for doing so. No, so long as the countries present a severe terrorist threat, that's the standard. From the Virginia decision. Show nested quote +The Court rejects the Defendants’ position that since President Trump has offered a legitimate, rational, and non-discriminatory purpose stated in EO-2, this Court must confine its analysis of the constitutional validity of EO-2 to the four corners of the Order. The Court has therefore carefully assessed President Trump’s facially legitimate national security basis for EO-2 against the backdrop of all of the statements the President and his closest advisors have made.
This Court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent. And while the President and his advisors have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2, the Court cannot conclude for the purposes of the Motion that these statements, together with the President’s past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority.
That argument is based on religious discrimination, not denial of due process in opposition of laws passed by congress.
|
On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Again, we already have laws addressing this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364
Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama.
There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws.
|
On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Show nested quote +Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws.
This is why the first EO got destroyed by the courts. The second one doesn't give christians and minority groups extra protection so it really isn't a religious test on face value. The supreme court has never used prior statements as evidence of intent for an EO. This might be the first time since Trump was so blatantly trying to make it a muslim ban, then changed it because Guilliani was like nah that won't fly. It's still on the campaign website so we will just have to see how Gorsuch rules on it.
Edit: also who makes these idiotic laws? What if there is a new religion someone starts that is all about violence, they worship the devil and want to harm everyone. How would the executive not have the power to ban by religion? Second, what if a nation is absolutely riddled with terrorists, or disease, how does the executive not have the power to ban by nationality?
|
On May 10 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:23 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:36 Plansix wrote:
The key aspect of this argument is that Rudy Giuliani said on TV that the law was written to “ban Muslims” legally. If I remember correctly, this was after the EO was being enforced. That and Trump’s other statements and his own funding page cast this shadow of the EO and make it impossible to separate the intent from the language. You mean before Giuliani went on to say he was putting together a commission with lawyers and what came out was about nations and terror. I'm well able to believe Trump needed to be advised on where the threat of terrorism originates and the areas of the world where there's danger and evidence of it. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 Doodsmack wrote:
I can see the argument that the text of the order as written does not have the same effect as "ban the Muslims". But it does have the effect of "ban some Muslims". The promise of ban the Muslims was just so clear and simple and prominent that there's barely any room for interpretation. He can invent an alternative explanation of "national security and foreign policy" all he wants, but there's also the "ban some Muslims" explanation - and that's where the judicial comes in. At some point a campaign promise is prominent enough and has a direct enough link to the EO that you can't help but interpret it as the purpose of the EO. Hey, I think we have a believer in reading the text to ascertain whether or not it in-effect bans the Muslims based on their religion rather than pausing immigration from terror-prone nations for a specified period of time. This is another problem with the EO because they don’t’ really have a lot of evidence to show those regions were a huge risk over others that were not included. Or that the risk had increased since Trump took office. There needs to be a provable reason for the order to exist. No, there doesn't need to be a provable reason for the order to exist, as you outlined here. How do you even prove the evidence to doubters? You might criticize the President on which countries he and Obama thought were the worst offenders. You probably didn't vote for him, you might think the real threat is Chinese in origin etc etc the point is that it's well within Trump's executive power to make selections from a list of terrorist exporters and maybe next year change it to be less or more. The standard isn't prove it's not discrimination or you can't do it. Except you can’t deny someone the issuance of a Visa or bar them from entering the country based on race, religion or nationality based on a 1965 law. Congress further stated that do deny a specific person a visa based on terrorism, the government must provide evidence. The order addresses none of these core issues and provide no evidence why it should exist and visas should be denied. The president doesn’t get to override laws passed by congress through executive order, even for a limited period of time. And just to be clear, someone with a valid Visa cannot be denied entry to the US. Visas do not have an “on hold due to executive order” state. They are either valid or revoked. At risk of repeating myself, the standard is not that you must prove it's not race, religion, or nationality based on some standard of explaining that these countries matter to terrorism and these don't. You might not like the inclusion or exclusion of certain nations on Obama's list, but those are nations not religions. It's not a specific person on terrorism, it's persons from specific nations. He absolutely can stop the issuing of visas. But then you have to further prove why these specific countries were cherry picked from a larger list. And then prove that the people who hold visas are a threat in some way. The order specifically revokes visas from that region without due process or providing evidence why those specific visas should be denied. This includes terrorism. Citing “Obama said these countries might be trouble” does not give the Trump administration the ability to ignore laws passed by congress or revoke visas and greencards on mass. You keep shifting the burden of proof to the challengers. They only need to prove that the law denies due process for specific visa holders and the State has not provided sufficient evidence to deny the visa. The state has to prove why the visa is being taken away without going through the standard process for doing so. No, so long as the countries present a severe terrorist threat, that's the standard. From the Virginia decision. The Court rejects the Defendants’ position that since President Trump has offered a legitimate, rational, and non-discriminatory purpose stated in EO-2, this Court must confine its analysis of the constitutional validity of EO-2 to the four corners of the Order. The Court has therefore carefully assessed President Trump’s facially legitimate national security basis for EO-2 against the backdrop of all of the statements the President and his closest advisors have made.
This Court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent. And while the President and his advisors have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2, the Court cannot conclude for the purposes of the Motion that these statements, together with the President’s past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority. That argument is based on religious discrimination, not denial of due process in opposition of laws passed by congress.
You just tried to make the case that Trump has to prove inclusion/noninclusion of nations in the list. Don't try to muddy the waters by flipping to due process.
|
On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Show nested quote +Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws.
I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act?
|
On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws. I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act?
You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you.
When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen.
|
On May 10 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:16 zlefin 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. I was being reasonable and pointing to well grounded principles of law and ethics. you are not, and are naysaying without an actual sound argument. you are trolling. please don't troll. I'll try to put it into your terms. I didn't see an actual sound argument in the first place from you. This is presidential campaigning and I'm sad to say campaign promises don't always come true and Trump contradicts himself on a regular basis if you don't cherry pick your quotes. you didn't see an argument because you didn't look; it was quite clearly there, and quite clearly about intent. so you're still trolling. go away, you're not helping the thread or anyone. you're just ignoring the points raised to keep restating your unfounded beliefs. PS it's a good thing campaign promises to violate the constitution and commit war crimes don't come true. don't know why you'd want them to /sarcasm
Repeating that it's there and saying "of course it does" does not help me understand what point you're trying to make. If you have well grounded principles of law and ethics, tell me how those are relevant in this case. If you've got another campaign promise intent argument to make, particularly if not already made in the thread, make it. I can't go off two principle citations and vague "there's a principle" "there's a rule" "this affects." I might promise a chicken in every pot on the campaign trail, but does that inform the judicial system that the next law I sign was all about poultry in homes? And stop trolling; if you don't think what I'm writing deserves a response, don't respond.
|
On May 10 2017 04:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws. I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act? You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you. When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen.
The Trump executive order I was talking about did not revoke any visas.
|
|
|
Go Lindsey, force trump to release dem tax returns
|
On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to.
This is what I'm talking about. The very subtly masked racism. It's what it is. One can hide behind "the letter of the law" but we know that's BS from the point I mentioned in my last post.
Regardless of what the "letter of the law" says, lots of people think the humanity we think we derive, in part, from our "constitutional protections" don't just belong to the people white men want (other white men and "good" minorities). The idea of our Declaration of Independence was dependent on the idea that the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not belonging exclusively to the specific people (white men) those words empowered at the time. Sure, that's what those guys meant, but that's not what the actual argument means.
So, yes, in reality our founding fathers essentially were saying
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,*
*APPLIES TO WHITE MEN ONLY
But most of us realize that's racist/sexist in the 21st century. As such it's not about the "strict letter of the law" when it comes to the "Governments instituted among Men" and more about the "consent of the governed".
Like if an American marries someone from Mexico (who descends from a group native to California) they don't imbue them with magical awesomeness that suddenly makes them morally and ethically worthy of access to the same "justice' that anyone else here would get. That people think it does, indicates a racist argument. Again, they can cloak it in "the law" if they want, but it's obviously that they just don't think them worthy. Same goes for the previous post.
|
On May 10 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 04:07 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws. I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act? You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you. When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen. The Trump executive order I was talking about did not revoke any visas.
Except in implementation it did revoke visa and greencards.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-order
So I am being charitable in assuming you do not understand the full scope and reach of the EO?
|
On May 10 2017 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. This is what I'm talking about. The very subtly masked racism. It's what it is. One can hide behind "the letter of the law" but we know that's BS from the point I mentioned in my last post. Regardless of what the "letter of the law" says, lots of people think the humanity we think we derive, in part, from our "constitutional protections" don't just belong to the people white men want (other white men and "good" minorities). The idea of our Declaration of Independence was dependent on the idea that the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not belonging exclusively to the specific people (white men) those words empowered at the time. Sure, that's what those guys meant, but that's not what the actual argument means. So, yes, in reality our founding fathers essentially were saying Show nested quote +When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,* *APPLIES TO WHITE MEN ONLYBut most of us realize that's racist/sexist in the 21st century. As such it's not about the "strict letter of the law" when it comes to the "Governments instituted among Men" and more about the "consent of the governed". Like if an American marries someone from Mexico (who descends from a group native to California) they don't imbue them with magical awesomeness that suddenly makes them morally and ethically worthy of access to the same "justice' that anyone else here would get. That people think it does, indicates a racist argument. Again, they can cloak it in "the law" if they want, but it's obviously that they just don't think them worthy. Same goes for the previous post.
I had to ask Plansix, and now I must ask you, do you mean the due process clause in the constitution or the administrative procedures act?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
With immigration, it matters who "we" are, and who "ourselves and our Posterity" are. But again, the page prior wasn't about the constitutional clause so I have to ask you what you mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
