Trump delivers again; bans immigration from 7 Muslim countries.

AAAintheBeltway said:
I'd certainly like to see where the "Founding Fathers" did that because it's certainly not in the Constitution.
More...

James Madison expected amendments would conciliate critics of the Constitution In 1787. When asked how that was going to work, he used an argument suggested by Thomas Jefferson, that the Courts would enforce them. The concept and the powers of judicial review were intended to be incorporated by the framers as the accepted method for ensuring observance of the Constitution and American law .

Judicial review, the power of the courts to set aside an order as unconstitutional forms the primary gatekeeper to enforcement of the Constitution.
 
16508614_10154299838552596_5652805069650195477_n.jpg
 
banks expecting scrapping of regulations from trump, yet some judge decision discredits him, benefiting couple of temp it imports, that benefits couple of IT firms that are playing same game as banks. so deregulation is in jeopardy for no good reason.

whats the catch?
 
fhl said:
Berkeley police arrested zero rioters, which tells us whose side the police are on

Judge Who Blocked Trump's Immigration Order Was Praised for Representing Refugees
The praise came during his confirmation hearings.

Federal judge [Robart] declares ‘black lives matter’ during hearing over Seattle police reform

UC Berkeley Thug Who Beat Conservative and Bragged About It Online – Is University Staff Member
More...

This is a fucking conspiracy.

Anyone that says otherwise is full of complete horseshit.

Since when is ARSON, property destruction, and flagrant assault protected by the 1st Amendment.

These cops need to be investigated. Police Chief ought to be arrested.

Get the fucking FBI in there.
 
stu said:
Judicial review, the power of the courts to set aside an order as unconstitutional forms the primary gatekeeper to enforcement of the Constitution.
More...

I disagree. The Constitution is protected by separation of powers. The Judiciary has no power to enforce its decisions without the assistance of one other branch.

The Constitution does not give the Judicial Branch express power to bind the Executive. Until Marbury v. Madison, the Court did not even claim power to invalidate acts of congress.

This order could have been judicially reviewed in the normal course without resort to an injunction or temporary stay. Doing so turned a legal issue into a political one, and set up a potential confrontation with the Executive Branch's plenary powers over immigration and national security.

This judge's actions are best seen as a continuation of the efforts to delegitimize Trump. Trump will have to face up to this sort of judicial tyranny at some point or watch his administration spin its wheels for four years. The left will obviously try to block his other policies, eg the wall, through activist judges. Trump has a strong hand here and should play it by ignoring the judge's order. I really don't see a lot of downside.
 
stu said:
James Madison expected amendments would conciliate critics of the Constitution In 1787. When asked how that was going to work, he used an argument suggested by Thomas Jefferson, that the Courts would enforce them. The concept and the powers of judicial review were intended to be incorporated by the framers as the accepted method for ensuring observance of the Constitution and American law .

Judicial review, the power of the courts to set aside an order as unconstitutional forms the primary gatekeeper to enforcement of the Constitution.
More...

There's nothing unconstitutional about the Ban.

Even Judge Robarts cited no constitutional infraction in his ruling. Did you read it?
 
Relevant sections of Article III. I am rather certain the Founders would have been astounded by claims the courts could override the Executive Branch regarding admission of foreigners.


Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
 
achilles28 said:
There's nothing unconstitutional about the Ban.

Even Judge Robarts cited no constitutional infraction in his ruling. Did you read it?
More...

"The work of the Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution." Judge Robart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top