Blog powered by Typepad

« 'Yes, yes, Mrs Lincoln, but how was the play?' | Main | "The maths mob" trip over an iambic pentameter »

Friday, 03 March 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

All this Executive Power has been growing for years and all Presidents have used it. It is simply that the Obama years of over reach, to the point of intervention by the Supreme Court, finally produced a counter result in Donald Trump. He promised to erase Obama's abuses and is doing so as little of it had any basis in legislated authority--ie law. A "phone and a pen" can be undone by the same.

If Trump will be a true "disrupter", he can begin by enforcing the rule of existing law. He can add Conservatives to all court positions that are open or will come open. He can continue the reduction of the administrative state which has become an unnatural 4th branch of government. It is a threat to our individual liberty. Along with the courts and like minded members of Congress, the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution can be used for their original purposes. This will entail near civil war within our power structures. Times a waistin'.

Quite right, Robert. What Trump has done, so far, is to issue Executive orders to. get this, ENFORCE THE LAW as it exists, right now. He has done too little, so far, but, "a journey of a thousand miles" and all that. The O'Guy issued edicts that changed Obamacare, because it was passed in such haste that there were many bugs in it. Rather than go back to Congress, which, by then, included a Republican House, he just took out the old 'phone and pen. If Trump simply voids those actions, which were illegal, anyway, he effectively repeals Obamacare, as the system comes grinding to a halt. I am fairly sure that there are people who can tell Trump this, and some others around him who say that the fallout from such an action would be deadly. However, it is out there as an option.

So far, I do not see any rule by decree, although a man of such smartitude as the Kraut may be able to cite some examples. It will be fun to watch, no , it already is fun to watch.

You're possibly being disingenuous, but would be well advised to find a better teacher than Krauthammer, David. Executive orders have been generally declining in number since FDR, and Obama issued fewer than his predecessor GW Bush:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)#History_and_use

Of course Krauthammer likes devolution of power to the states. That's been on the conservative wish list since the beginning of the republic and was a cause of the Civil War:

http://www.historynet.com/states-rights-civil-war

Obviously, it's not always worked out well.

It is not the number of EOs issued. It is their scope and over reach. Just 4 or 5 of them can turn the economy and the law on its head.

Trump just tried to enact a travel ban that was blatantly unconstitutional as well as in violation of US code. Does that qualify as over reach?

Bob, In case you had not noticed Muslims are slaughtering all over the world. Islam is not a religion it is a political dictatorship. Trump is right.

So the US is a country of laws and not men unless a currently unpopular religion is involved? Should Catholics have been banned during the 19th century?

When did the Supreme Court rule President Trump's EO unconstitutional?

Only 3 judges on the 9th Circuit did, not the full Court, and not even close to the Supreme Court. Those 3 judges will be over turned if for no other reason than judicial encroachment. It takes time.

True enough Whitewall on the 9th. It wasn't the constitutionality ruled on. The Supreme Court, by way of the Constitution, have the judicial authority to rule something unconstitutional. The 9th circuit is extremely partisan and should be broken up.

When Bob says something is unconstitutional he means it is unconstitutional. End of argument. Just like when Pelosi says she never met the Russian ambassador then she never met him. Get with programme Up2L8!

And that boe made me smile, thank you.

The 9th ruled that the travel ban denied due process, which made it unconstitutional:

"In summary, the Ninth Circuit’s decision included these key rulings:

The Ninth Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s claims that the president had unlimited authority on immigration issues affecting national security

Washington and Minnesota both had a legitimate basis to challenge the order

The states had also shown they were likely to win on their claim that Trump’s executive order violated due process"

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/trump-promises-to-re-tool-travel-ban-after-last-week-s-hit-ninth-circuit

It didn't even get to the exception for Christians.

So, if the EO wasn't unconstitutional why did the administration remove the sections found to be unlawful or unconstitutional for a second try, which has been delayed?

I'm not a federal judge and don't declare anything unconstitutional, but I do read actual news instead of stuff I'd like to believe.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s claims that the president had unlimited authority on immigration issues affecting national security
This case was about two questions, only one of which the 3 judge panel even mentioned. The 1st question is how broad the president’s authority is to limit admissions from the relevant seven countries. The 2nd to what extent is that authority limited by constitutional law. There is a statute that gives him the sweeping power to do this: (8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens)

[(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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 nonimmigrant’s, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
]

The one question the panel does discuss, is the extent to which the repeated and overt invocations on the part of the President himself and his Twitter feed will render an otherwise valid exercise of this power invalid.

So, if the EO wasn't unconstitutional why did the administration remove the sections found to be unlawful or unconstitutional for a second try, which has been delayed?
One word: Expediency - Looking foreword it would be next year before the SC would make a ruling. And many undesirables could gain entry during that time period.

But it’s worth emphasizing that the grounds on which this order was fought are not the grounds on which the merits fight will happen. Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.

Bob,

Simply intending to buttress Up2L8's:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357

What was Trump's aim? It was to impose a pause while "extreme" vetting was imposed. I expect, that while the democrats get on with destroying the judicial system, Trump is applying extreme vetting using the neat bureaucracy the democrats have created.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)