Executive order

[po18guy]

Why have Muslim attacks/Islamic terror increased in America in recent years? Could it be a failed immigration policy? Remember that those who are legally here, leave, then return once radicalized are the threat. It’s your life - your children’s lives. We criticize an executive order relating to immigration control for the sake of political commentary?

3 1/2 minutes is all it takes to listen to an American in Iraq right now.

youtube.com/watch?v=RTXN2p3qVRg&feature=youtu.be

 

[josh987654321]

Why have Muslim attacks/Islamic terror increased in America in recent years? Could it be a failed immigration policy? Remember that those who are legally here, leave, then return once radicalized are the threat. It’s your life - your children’s lives. We criticize an executive order relating to immigration control for the sake of political commentary?

3 1/2 minutes is all it takes to listen to an American in Iraq right now.

youtube.com/watch?v=RTXN2p3qVRg&feature=youtu.be

Thanks for sharing this.

It makes sense too, I can’t imagine they have any love at all for America considering the state they were in before 9/11 and considering all that’s happened since then, such as the occupation, pulling out, then the creation of ISIS, bombings and in fighting etc.

I think a lot of those people would have I’ll will toward the US, some of it sort of understandable, due to the previous administrations policies, and the false information about WMD’s, and some of it not understandable and very hostile. Which is why I agree, it’s important to suspend any immigration from such regions until they can be properly vetted. To know that those who are admitted are truly seeking refuge and don’t have I’ll will toward the nation giving them refuge.

I would also like to see persecuted minorities such as Christians, Yazidis etc given priority, because it should be based on their need for ‘refuge’ I believe.

Even more alarming, is that some comments mention social media such as facebook removing the clip.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Reuben_J]

It makes sense now when Trump said he wanted to admit only those people into the country who support it and love the people deeply. Leftists said that this was very fascistic then.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

If the courts prevail against Trump’s EO, it means the judiciary has taken priority and precedence over both the legislative and executive branches of the US government. We will then no longer have a balance of power between three separate branches of government. I pray the 9th Circuit reverses the District Court and failing that that the US Supreme Court reverses both lower courts. Because if they don’t, we are headed to a constitutional crisis.

 

[randomuser]

If the courts prevail against Trump’s EO, it means the judiciary has taken priority and precedence over both the legislative and executive branches of the US government. We will then no longer have a balance of power between three separate branches of government. I pray the 9th Circuit reverses the District Court and failing that that the US Supreme Court reverses both lower courts. Because if they don’t, we are headed to a constitutional crisis.

The 9th Circuit Court likely sees the glaring omission of Saudi Arabia, which undermines the Trump DOJ’s entire legal rationale. So, too, do they see the folly of, “But it’s Obama’s list!” when Trump (not Obama) has a duty to protect Americans from the country believed to be complicit in 9/11. Trump’s DOJ has no case.

 

[shockerfan]

The 9th Circuit Court likely sees the glaring omission of Saudi Arabia, which undermines the Trump DOJ’s entire legal rationale. So, too, do they see the folly of, “But it’s Obama’s list!” when Trump (not Obama) has a duty to protect Americans from the country believed to be complicit in 9/11. Trump’s DOJ has no case.

The list of countries included or excluded are largely irrelevant. The law states:
Section 212(f):

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Please advise how Trump did not follow the law, or how his executive order is unconstitutional. That is all the courts get to decide: Is it constitutional or not. Anything else is outside of their realm of responsibility

 

[AClaire11]

If the courts prevail against Trump’s EO, it means the judiciary has taken priority and precedence over both the legislative and executive branches of the US government. We will then no longer have a balance of power between three separate branches of government. I pray the 9th Circuit reverses the District Court and failing that that the US Supreme Court reverses both lower courts. Because if they don’t, we are headed to a constitutional crisis.

On the contrary, it will prove that we still do have a balance of power and that the executive branch doesn’t get to do whatever it wants.

 

[Sy_Noe]

On the contrary, it will prove that we still do have a balance of power and that the executive branch doesn’t get to do whatever it wants.

Exactly and that might be a lesson this President needs schooled on.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Read the law. Tell me how President Trump has violated the law. This case never should have gotten to where it is (at an appellate level). It should have been tossed by the district court as was done by the district court judge in Boston.

It is not for the judiciary to add countries they think should be on the list or modify the executive order to what they think it should say. It doesn’t matter whether it was Obama’s list. It doesn’t matter if Saudi Arabia (or some other country) is or is not on the list. It doesn’t matter whether the court thinks the law should or should not have been enacted.

The question is whether the President has acted within the statutory and Constitutional mandates granted to the executive branch of government. If he has, then it is end of discussion, case over. If he hasn’t then the judiciary has both the right and obligation to state that the exercise of power by President was unconstitutional.

Balance of power does not give the judiciary the right to re-write legislative statutes or executive orders as they see fit. If that is what happens here, then we have no rule of law in the USA and the branches of government and the separation of power is meaningless.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The list of countries included or excluded are largely irrelevant. The law states:

Please advise how Trump did not follow the law, or how his executive order is unconstitutional. That is all the courts get to decide: Is it constitutional or not. Anything else is outside of their realm of responsibility

Actually Judge Robart (an actual judge not a so called one unless Mr Trump wants to tweet we have a so called president) had to decide how likely it was that the states of Washington and Minnesota would succeed at a later date. He decided in his view more likely than not.

And that those states would be suffering irreparable harm if the ban continued in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.

And yes the list is relevant. When Judge Robart questioned the Department of Justice lawyer who was representing Trump and his administration, he wondered how many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11 who have killed Americans on American soil?

DJT and his people had no answer. So Judge Robart helped DJT out with an answer.

“The answer to that is none, as best I can tell,” said the judge.

And thus he found the EO was grounded more in the fictional mind of one DJT than in fact.

npr.org/2017/02/04/513446463/who-is-judge-james-l-robart-and-why-did-he-block-trumps-immigration-order

usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/04/read-washington-judges-ruling-trumps-immigration-ban/97484850/

 

[Sy_Noe]

Read the law. Tell me how President Trump has violated the law. This case never should have gotten to where it is (at an appellate level). It should have been tossed by the district court as was done by the district court judge in Boston.

It is not for the judiciary to add countries they think should be on the list or modify the executive order to what they think it should say. It doesn’t matter whether it was Obama’s list. It doesn’t matter if Saudi Arabia (or some other country) is or is not on the list. It doesn’t matter whether the court thinks the law should or should not have been enacted.

The question is whether the President has acted within the statutory and Constitutional mandates granted to the executive branch of government. If he has, then it is end of discussion, case over. If he hasn’t then the judiciary has both the right and obligation to state that the exercise of power by President was unconstitutional.

Balance of power does not give the judiciary the right to re-write legislative statutes or executive orders as they see fit. If that is what happens here, then we have no rule of law in the USA and the branches of government and the separation of power is meaningless.

Trump would not be the first President to have an EO overturned if it is. People on this forum love to point back to Obama. Well there ya go. And the hypocrisy abounds that if the man signing EOs has a name of Obama, that’s the worst thing for our democratic-republic. But if the man is named Donald J Trump, woo hoo!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually Judge Robart (an actual judge not a so called one unless Mr Trump wants to tweet we have a so called president) had to decide how likely it was that the states of Washington and Minnesota would succeed at a later date. He decided in his view more likely than not.

And that those states would be suffering irreparable harm if the ban continued in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.

And yes the list is relevant. When Judge Robart questioned the Department of Justice lawyer who was representing Trump and his administration, he wondered how many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11 who have killed Americans on American soil?

DJT and his people had no answer. So Judge Robart helped DJT out with an answer.

“The answer to that is none, as best I can tell,” said the judge.

And thus he found the EO was grounded more in the fictional mind of one DJT than in fact.

npr.org/2017/02/04/513446463/who-is-judge-james-l-robart-and-why-did-he-block-trumps-immigration-order

usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/04/read-washington-judges-ruling-trumps-immigration-ban/97484850/

Wonder if, at some time we get into a straight-up shooting war with ISIS, the Ninth Circuit will purport to forbid it, telling us Russia is the greater threat and ordering the president at the time to shoot down Russian planes instead.

This really is crazy; to get the courts involved in foreign policy judgments. They are not privy to the intelligence to which the executive is privy, they do not have expert defense advisors, and know no more about foreign threats than they read in the newspapers.

And that’s essentially what the Ninth Circuit did; ask if there was more intel than they read in the newspapers.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Wonder if, at some time we get into a straight-up shooting war with ISIS, the Ninth Circuit will purport to forbid it, telling us Russia is the greater threat and ordering the president at the time to shoot down Russian planes instead.

This really is crazy; to get the courts involved in foreign policy judgments. They are not privy to the intelligence to which the executive is privy, they do not have expert defense advisors, and know no more about foreign threats than they read in the newspapers.

And that’s essentially what the Ninth Circuit did; ask if there was more intel than they read in the newspapers.

One of the problems with whom some perceive as the savior of America, DJT, is he can’t have it both ways. If there is intel that DJT isn’t revealing, remember his opinion of intel is it was wrong about WMD and thus wrong about Russia.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

**Ridgerunner Quote: Wonder if, at some time we get into a straight-up shooting war with ISIS, the Ninth Circuit will purport to forbid it, telling us Russia is the greater threat and ordering the president at the time to shoot down Russian planes instead.

This really is crazy; to get the courts involved in foreign policy judgments. They are not privy to the intelligence to which the executive is privy, they do not have expert defense advisors, and know no more about foreign threats than they read in the newspapers.

And that’s essentially what the Ninth Circuit did; ask if there was more intel than they read in the newspapers. **

Yeah, some of the folks here just don’t get it. They don’t understand the importance and the ramifications of the judicial proceedings and appeals that are taking place right now. It is beyond crazy – it is terrifying.

 

[NM505StKate]

Is the debate here the legality of the order?

 

[randomuser]

And yes the list is relevant. When Judge Robart questioned the Department of Justice lawyer who was representing Trump and his administration, he wondered how many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11 who have killed Americans on American soil?

DJT and his people had no answer. So Judge Robart helped DJT out with an answer.

“The answer to that is none, as best I can tell,” said the judge.

And thus he found the EO was grounded more in the fictional mind of one DJT than in fact.

npr.org/2017/02/04/513446463/who-is-judge-james-l-robart-and-why-did-he-block-trumps-immigration-order

usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/04/read-washington-judges-ruling-trumps-immigration-ban/97484850/

Trump’s DOJ has no case. It’s that simple. The judiciary knows this.

 

[shockerfan]

Actually Judge Robart (an actual judge not a so called one unless Mr Trump wants to tweet we have a so called president) had to decide how likely it was that the states of Washington and Minnesota would succeed at a later date. He decided in his view more likely than not.

And that those states would be suffering irreparable harm if the ban continued in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.

And yes the list is relevant. When Judge Robart questioned the Department of Justice lawyer who was representing Trump and his administration, he wondered how many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11 who have killed Americans on American soil?

DJT and his people had no answer. So Judge Robart helped DJT out with an answer.

“The answer to that is none, as best I can tell,” said the judge.

And thus he found the EO was grounded more in the fictional mind of one DJT than in fact.

npr.org/2017/02/04/513446463/who-is-judge-james-l-robart-and-why-did-he-block-trumps-immigration-order

usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/04/read-washington-judges-ruling-trumps-immigration-ban/97484850/

Using that reasoning, a district judge in Washington can overrule any president’s decision, no matter if its within the letter of the law, simply because a state might be harmed.

Perhaps he could overrule a trade agreement that might negatively impact a business in Washington

Perhaps he could put an end to bombing of ISIS because a reprisal from ISIS might endanger a citizen of the state of Washington?

You seem to agree with the judge, not because he ruled on the constitutionality of the EO, you agree because the judgment fits your worldview.

If the judge is debating which countries are on the list, he is inserting his own judgment and opinion for that of a duly elected president. The judge’s ONLY job is to determine the constitutionality of the EO. Thats it. And its exactly because of this kind of action (judicial overreach) that I voted for Donald Trump, because he will appoint judges who will do their job and not legislate from the bench or pretend they are president. That is also a major reason Hillary Clinton lost, because at the 2nd debate when asked about the Supreme Court, she didn’t mention the constitution…she talked about how she wanted justices who will implement her social justice agenda!

 

[Saints_Alive]

The 9th Circuit Court likely sees the glaring omission of Saudi Arabia, which undermines the Trump DOJ’s entire legal rationale. So, too, do they see the folly of, “But it’s Obama’s list!” when Trump (not Obama) has a duty to protect Americans from the country believed to be complicit in 9/11. Trump’s DOJ has no case.

It’s not the courts place or responsibility to determine what countries should or should not be on the list. And Saudi Arabia is not on trial here

On Tuesday one of the three judges pointed out that it’s not a Muslim ban considering that well less than 20% of the world’s Muslim population is affected by the EO.

It’s those opposing the ban that have no case, assuming the judges making the decision rule with integrity and without liberal interpretation of the Constitution and law.

jmo

And fwiw, I don’t support the executive order as it stands.

 

[NM505StKate]

El Cheeto is legally alright in this case. So more than likely the ban will start again.

 

[randomuser]

It’s not the courts place or responsibility to determine what countries should or should not be on the list. And Saudi Arabia is not on trial here

On Tuesday one of the three judges pointed out that it’s not a Muslim ban considering that well less than 20% of the world’s Muslim population is affected by the EO.

It’s those opposing the ban that have no case, assuming the judges making the decision rule with integrity and without liberal interpretation of the Constitution and law.

jmo

And fwiw, I don’t support the executive order as it stands.

Trump’s credibilty is ostensibly what’s on trial. By ignoring the country believed to be complicit in the terrorist activity of 9/11, Trump has undermined any possible defense. How many terrorist actions have been committed against the U.S. by countries of the secondhand list from Obama (despite Trump being the POTUS now)? Zero. The goose egg.