Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GOP senators: Anyone but Cruz

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    Executive Orders are good when your guy is in power and not good when the other party is in power.
    I can always count on you for the most simplistic interpretation. But no, no, and no. Again, the content and context of the executive order is what matters, not who issued it or what number it may have been in sequence.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jannie View Post
      Executive Orders are good when your guy is in power and not good when the other party is in power. According to what I can find out—an Executive Order will clarify or further a law on the books, which is why Obama had his staffers searching the laws to see if he could do more on gun control.

      http://www.columbian.com/news/2015/d...n-gun-control/

      As I understand it, there has to be a law on the books for the President to make an Executive Order about something or the issue has to be regarded as within the purview of his Constitutional Executive Power, for instance something that might be regarded as within his Commander and Chief status for something military.

      There have only ever been two Supreme Court Decisions invalidating an Executive Order. Congress can do nothing about them, unless they make a new law to put on the books and the most effective invalidation is for the next President to vacate it. As I understand it, Congress can sue to invalidate an Executive Order, but the suit would probably have to run through the Supreme Court to be invalidated. Will the Supreme Court invalidate Obama’s Immigration Executive Order? His administration is taking it to the Supreme Court and the Court has agreed to hear the case.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/oba...cutive-orders/

      http://www.freeadvice.com/news/Gover...-challenge.htm

      Regarding controversial Executive Orders Abraham Lincoln invalidated Habeas Corpus during the Civil War and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Pretty heavy duty Orders!


      The fact that the SCOTUS is hearing the case on BO's immigration order is not good news for those who support it. The SCOTUS may uphold it, but the fact they are reviewing it means they see a problem.

      As for Lincoln's EO, Article 9 of the Constitution specifically provides for authority to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion. Like a civil war.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #33
        Martok said:
        I can always count on you for the most simplistic interpretation. But no, no, and no. Again, the content and context of the executive order is what matters, not who issued it or what number it may have been in sequence.
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
        The fact that the SCOTUS is hearing the case on BO's immigration order is not good news for those who support it. The SCOTUS may uphold it, but the fact they are reviewing it means they see a problem.

        As for Lincoln's EO, Article 9 of the Constitution specifically provides for authority to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion. Like a civil war.
        Martok: Well, I think I always go for the most simplistic and obvious interpretation. I am a simple person. I like to cut to the chase, call a spade a spade!

        Cambronnne: Re: Immigration case going to Supreme Court. As I understand it the Obama Administration has asked the Supreme Court to take on the case because the lower courts have all gone against the Executive Order.
        The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, and today the Justices agreed to do so. This means that the Court will almost certainly hear oral arguments in the case in late April, with a decision expected in late June – just as the 2016 presidential campaign, in which immigration has already played a major role, really starts to heat up.
        The first issue that the Justices agreed to decide today is a threshold question: whether Texas and the other states have a right to file the lawsuit at all – a legal doctrine known as “standing.” The idea behind standing is that federal courts should only decide actual disputes, between parties who have a concrete interest in the conflict. You can’t bring a lawsuit, for example, simply because you don’t like one of the government’s policies; you generally have to show that you have been directly affected or injured by that policy.

        The lower court in this case ruled that, at the very least, Texas has a right to challenge the administration’s immigration policy. (And as long as one of the twenty-six states has that right, the lawsuit can go forward.) If the policy were to go into effect, that court reasoned, the state would face significant additional costs, ranging from subsidies for temporary driver’s licenses to expenditures for health care, law enforcement, and education.

        In its petition for certiorari, the legal brief asking the Court to review the case, the Obama administration argued that – just like individuals – states usually don’t have a right to sue to challenge decisions by the executive branch about how it will enforce federal laws. That doesn’t change, the administration continued, when the policy at the heart of the conflict may have “collateral consequences” for the immigrants who may benefit from the policy. And, the administration added, it was Texas’s choice to allow certain immigrants to apply for temporary driver’s licenses and subsidize the costs; nothing in the new immigration policy would prevent Texas from changing or getting rid of the driver’s license program at any time.
        http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/co...plain-english/

        If the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on the basis of the Administration's filing then that would indicate to me that they think the Administration's argument may have merit, otherwise they would have let the last Federal Court's ruling stand and opted not to hear the Administration's case. At least that is my simplistic interpretation of the scotusblog's article.
        Last edited by Jannie; 28 Jan 16, 13:59.
        Homo homini lupus

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jannie View Post
          Martok said:



          Martok: Well, I think I always go for the most simplistic and obvious interpretation. I am a simple person. I like to cut to the chase, call a spade a spade!

          Cambronnne: Re: Immigration case going to Supreme Court. As I understand it the Obama Administration has asked the Supreme Court to take on the case because the lower courts have all gone against the Executive Order.


          http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/co...plain-english/

          The SCOTUS is taking up multiple issues, one of which the administration didn't ask to be reviewed.
          From your linked article:

          In granting review today, the Justices also instructed the states and the Obama administration to address a fourth question: whether the immigration policy violates the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause,” which requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The states had raised this question briefly in the Supreme Court, while emphasizing it heavily below. In many cases, the fact that the lower court did not decide a legal question will often prompt the Justices to decline to do so as well – but that did not happen here. This could mean that the Justices just want to make sure that all of the bases are covered in the case, or it could mean that there are at least four Justices who believe that the argument has some merit; it is impossible to know right now.

          So, the court sees a problem with that issue.
          The administration did not ask SCOTUS to review this issue, the Court decided to do so because it sees a potential problem. It may side with BO, but the inclusion of this issue is not to BO's benefit.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #35
            And I think that the paragraph
            The next question that the Justices agreed today to decide goes to the merits of the state’s challenge: assuming the states do have a right to bring the case, does the Obama administration have the authority to issue the new immigration policy? The administration contended that it does: Congress makes immigration law, but it has given the executive branch discretion to make decisions about immigration and deportation, including who gets to stay in the country. Indeed, the administration emphasized, although immigration law makes “a huge population” of undocumented immigrants potentially subject to being deported, Congress “has appropriated the funds to remove only a small fraction of that population” – which, the administration suggested, is a tacit acknowledgement by Congress of the executive branch’s discretion to prioritize which immigrants should be deported. Moreover, the administration added, even though “Congress has long been aware” that the executive branch has regularly declined to deport specific groups of immigrants, it has never done anything that would prevent the executive branch from allowing this group of parents to stay in the country.
            takes care of that issue. The Administration has to set priorities due to the finances it is permitted by Congress to deal with the problem. It can either do “first caught, first out” which would likely deport innocuous people or it can go for deporting criminals, and egregious returners first, before it goes for the more harmless folk.
            http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/co...plain-english/

            As a citizen who frequently sees Hispanic families when I am out and about, I don’t mind their presence near as much as I do some drug cartel guy who is bringing in drugs to sell to the North St. Louis gangs. I want those folks gone first!
            Homo homini lupus

            Comment


            • #36
              To take the issue back to Ted Cruz: How would Ted Cruz deport illegals? From an article dated January 10.
              Cruz, who over the past few weeks has specifically endorsed deportations after months of resisting, said in an interview that aired Sunday on "State of the Union" that the U.S. should catch those who came here illegally under normal law enforcement practices, not through round-ups of the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the U.S.

              "No, I don't intend to send jackboots to knock on your door and every door in America. That's not how we enforce the law for any crime," Cruz told Tapper as his campaign bus ambled across northern Iowa.
              Trump has promised to authorize a "deportation force" to remove those immigrants from the U.S., pledging to do it "humanely."
              […]
              "We don't have any system that knocks on the doors of every person in America," Cruz told Tapper. "We also don't have people going door-to-door looking for murderers. We don't live in a police state. We do have law enforcement."

              Cruz indicated that he would only deport those who are apprehended, such as those who commit crimes or are caught by prospective employers without having immigrated legally. Immigrations and Custom Enforcement or Border Patrol agents could also apprehend those along the border.
              It sounds to me like he would pretty much do as Obama is doing.

              http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/10/politi...uns-terrorism/
              Homo homini lupus

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X