DACA must be restored rules federal judge
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
This is very simple. The Obama Administration made the policy, so the Trump Administration can nullify it. Period.
Correct. It is up to the people's house to modify it, not the president. Actually the people's house along with the Senate and a presidents signature or a veto override as well.
It's not about the rule of law, or even DACA kids. It's an attempt to stop Trump's agenda.
You are correct. No Judge can override the recension of an Legal Executive Order. Only if the EO was unlawful or unconstitutional can a judge intervene.
There's three branches of government. It's time they all quit stepping outside their limits.
And Trump's EO was deemed unconstitutional. I see no problems here
No it was not.
The court said he needed to present a more solid argument under the Administrative Procedures Act, which he is free to go off and do or not do. There was no constitutional determination regarding the constitutional powers of the president, other than that he must comply with statutory and procedural steps. In any case, it is just one of many renegade district level decisions along with others heading in the other direction. Just as we went through with the travel ban thing. Just as I said earlier, let em have their fun, until they aren't anymore- just as with the travel ban.
Or to put a finer point on it:
It is unconstitutional regardless of what Trump does. Thus several states have brought cases to have it declared unconstitutional regardless of what Trump does. It also takes Trump off the hook for it.
The lefties like to let Trump be the fall guy by saying that he is the one who un-did DACA and could just use his executive order powers to keep it alive. No he can not. Trump does not have the constitutional authority to do that.
Congress has spoken on the immigration issues addressed by DACA. DACA just came about because the lefties don't like what the law is.
Piezoe gave us his opinion as a justice on the Saskatchewan Supreme Court a while ago.
Plenty of entertainment value there.
Is the "Peoples House" a euphemism for the judicial system? I've never heard that term before.I'll act here as a judge would and "interpret" what you have written as you say judges should do.
You, dear plaintiff, have complained that one branch of government, The Executive, has usurped the power given by the Constitution to another, the Legislative. The court (myself in this case) agrees with the plaintiff (you, in this case), the Executive has indeed acted ultra vires. As to the superfluous remark of the plaintiff, however, To Wit:
"... you [the figurative "you"] don't get to toss out the appointed separations of power because you don't like the politicians filling the congressional seats.
The court will remind the plaintiff that the Executive may do what it likes so long as the Legislature allows it. To take unkind liberty with your words dear plaintiff, "...you [do] get to toss out the appointed separations of powers [when] you don't like the politicians filling the congressional seats ...[so long as you're allowed to by the Congress.]
That, I'm sorry to inform you, is the way our U.S. Constitution works as intended by the Founders, and with quite obviously unintended consequences.
The Court will remind the Plaintiff that it is not possible when drafting a law to foresee every possible future situation. Consequently laws that seemed quite perfect when drafted may become quite imperfect in the course of time. Among the several remedies for this unavoidable situation, such as, for example, armed revolt of the people, constant amendment of past laws by a cumbersome, uncertain process, etc., The Court has adopted a most practical and efficient solution, and left it up to the "Peoples House" to modify the laws as they see fit and to insist on their enforcement.
The Court has Spoken!
We all know the basic separation of power. The Legislative branch creates the laws, the Executive branch enforces the laws, and the Judicial branch interprets the laws. We've seen the executive branch attempt to distort the separation of power through EO's for some time now, but that's not what I was getting at.
The point I was trying to make is that the Judicial branch sure seems to be straying away from their purpose of interpreting the law. It seems like they're injecting their own personal beliefs and biases into ruling in an attempt to mold the law in the way they see fit. At least that's my take based off the limited exposure I have to our legal system over the past few years.
