Is Trump Exceeding Constitutional Authority?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

quick point to consider here: if he's claiming he has worked out a deal with Mexico, that'd also be a constitutional issue. Not just that he is blatantly lying, but also he is not the USA corporate CEO as there is a process for treaty ratification involving Congress and checks and balances.

 

[fast]

If he's not exceeding his authority, he's not the kind of person we need at the helm.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think Mexico may only pay for this if it gets deals from the USA. That is to say if it makes increased savings by way of reduced tariffs, any increased aid, investment in Mexican industries,and other means.
Mexico may then allocate some payments to the USA from what it has effectively gained before doing this.
I''m not sure that this would cover the whole cost but as a result of any USA assistance and concessions it will pay some towards out of gains and savings arising out of US cooperation. This is just a speculative guess.

You are truly delusional.

Last time I heard, Mexico told Trump to f*** his wall and cancelled their scheduled meeting. Is that the kind of deal you had in mind?

Still, this goes according to my reading of the signs. Now, after Saint Theresa, another woman could be the next in line to meet with Trump.
EB

 

[Toni]

FTFY.

Clearly you don't understand how politics has works for the past 10,000 years.
Dealings between countries are reciprocal.

But not compulsory.

Whatever spin Twitler wishes to put on it, Mexico isn't playing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

FTFY.

Clearly you don't understand how politics has works for the past 10,000 years.
Dealings between countries are reciprocal. While I said speculative I'm not sure of the exact format but can guess.
Do you think that Trump or any other US leader would expect that Mexico will say yes to paying for the Wall?
Of course not he and Mexico will negotiate this. The best way would be various deals and concessions that effectively resolve this.

There will be upfront costs for the USA but then something which can be passed through Congress and the Senate, also showing how this can be effectively and often indirectly recouped through how I mentioned.

Mexico doesn't need any wall and it already has a free trade agreement with the U.S. Build that wall if you like, Donald, but America will got to pay for it in the end and people aren't going to like it. Let's see if Trump can find a way out of this mess he's made without mud on his face. Denouncing the free trade agreement would just make many things more costly for many Americans and won't pay for the wall. And even some Republicans would probably object to anything like that.

And wait for when we'll have this elephant in the China shop.
EB

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The current immigration ban he put into place is not legal and exceeds his power. We have a law passed that specifically prohibits this. This order is contrary to the law and if upheld means that the President can change laws passed by the legislature a.k.a. rule by decree.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The current immigration ban he put into place is not legal and exceeds his power. We have a law passed that specifically prohibits this. This order is contrary to the law and if upheld means that the President can change laws passed by the legislature a.k.a. rule by decree.

President Donald Trump and his new administration are facing legal challenges after two Iraqis with valid visas to enter the United States were detained at a New York airport, following his sweeping executive order that bars citizens from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the country.

Lawyers for the International Refugee Assistance Project and the National Immigration Law Center filed a lawsuit early Saturday in federal court seeking to release Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, who are being held at John F. Kennedy Airport.

Customs and Border Protection agents who detained the men at JFK are pointing to Trump’s executive order, telling the immigrants’ attorneys: “Mr. President. Call Mr. Trump,” according to the 20-page lawsuit. which was also filed by the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School and the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-refugees-lawsuit-iraq-visas-234305

 

[credoconsolans]

President Donald Trump and his new administration are facing legal challenges after two Iraqis with valid visas to enter the United States were detained at a New York airport, following his sweeping executive order that bars citizens from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the country.

Lawyers for the International Refugee Assistance Project and the National Immigration Law Center filed a lawsuit early Saturday in federal court seeking to release Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, who are being held at John F. Kennedy Airport.

Customs and Border Protection agents who detained the men at JFK are pointing to Trump’s executive order, telling the immigrants’ attorneys: “Mr. President. Call Mr. Trump,” according to the 20-page lawsuit. which was also filed by the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School and the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-refugees-lawsuit-iraq-visas-234305

Phyllis Bennis at IPS thinktank in DC says

There's no question, this is an anti-Muslim ban. This is an effort to keep Muslims out of the United States. The notion that this is somehow going to keep people in the United States safer or protect refugees in any way is simply not the case. What we're looking at is an Executive Order that essentially bans Muslims for all Muslims and indeed all people for at least 30 days, perhaps longer, but also for a much longer period excludes anyone, refugees, immigrants, or anyone else from seven named Muslim-majority countries. Now, those countries, of those seven, the U.S. is actually bombing five of them – that would be Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia – it has troops deployed and military bases established, U.S. military bases established, in the 6th, which is Sudan, and has consistently imposed very harsh sanctions and frequently made threats against the 7th, which is Iran.
Now, the other thing that these seven countries all have in common, besides being countries at which the U.S. is attacking, none of them have Trump Industry projects. None of them have Trump Hotels, for instance. If you look at other Muslim-majority countries where there has been a much more direct link to terrorism, ironically enough, such as either Egypt or Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia, as we know, has long been accused of funneling money in various forms to ISIS and to other terrorist organizations, and, of course, in Egypt, largely because of increasing government repression, you have significant acts of terror being committed on their soil – neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia is included in the list, and, what a surprise, in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Trump has significant commercial holdings, hotels, et cetera.

 

[repoman]

I started another thread a while ago that didn't get traction asking if Trump's overreach will lead to a general rollback of Presidential powers. Not what they are on paper, but what they are as practiced.

 

[SLD]

Trump's Executive Order won't cause the shovels to start next day. It's just the work gets started on the proposals, design, environmental impact statements, and a host of other issues that have to be dealt with prior to implementation. You are correct, ultimately it must be approved and appropriated by Congress.

His Muslim ban does likely violate the Constitution, and a judge has already suspended it (which Trump says isn't enforceable). But in truth, most Presidents have been slapped down for exceeding their authority by the Courts so that alone doesn't augur one way or the other at this point. If Trump starts outright defy Court orders, which he seems to be doing with this recent issue (maybe), then we will indeed have a real problem.

SLD

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump's Executive Order won't cause the shovels to start next day. It's just the work gets started on the proposals, design, environmental impact statements, and a host of other issues that have to be dealt with prior to implementation. You are correct, ultimately it must be approved and appropriated by Congress.

No, it was not a note prior to implementation, it was an executive order that affects tens of thousands of people each day. The DHS (executive branch) just said fuck you to the Judicial Branch of Government:

Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation

Release Date: January 29, 2017
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation

If Trump starts outright defy Court orders, which he seems to be doing with this recent issue (maybe), then we will indeed have a real problem.

He defied the Constitution by acting like a monarch and now he is defying the Courts which also makes him a monarch.

 

[SLD]

No, it was not a note prior to implementation, it was an executive order that affects tens of thousands of people each day. The DHS (executive branch) just said fuck you to the Judicial Branch of Government:

Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation

Release Date: January 29, 2017
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation

If Trump starts outright defy Court orders, which he seems to be doing with this recent issue (maybe), then we will indeed have a real problem.

He defied the Constitution by acting like a monarch and now he is defying the Courts which also makes him a monarch.

Do I detect a hint of dissent in your post, Don?

I must unfortunately report you to the DHS for potential Economic Terrorism

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...s-charging-protesters-with-economic-terrorism

 

[bilby]

Trump's Executive Order won't cause the shovels to start next day. It's just the work gets started on the proposals, design, environmental impact statements, and a host of other issues that have to be dealt with prior to implementation. You are correct, ultimately it must be approved and appropriated by Congress.

His Muslim ban does likely violate the Constitution, and a judge has already suspended it (which Trump says isn't enforceable). But in truth, most Presidents have been slapped down for exceeding their authority by the Courts so that alone doesn't augur one way or the other at this point. If Trump starts outright defy Court orders, which he seems to be doing with this recent issue (maybe), then we will indeed have a real problem.

SLD

I don't think it augurs well to be fighting the courts over the limits of Presidential authority a mere week after being inaugurated. Has that ever happened before? What's the previous record for fewest days in office before having an injunction (or other judicial ruling) overturn a new president's executive order?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And this isn't just Unconstitutional, but obviously so. Unless Appellate courts disagree, SCOTUS could tell Trump to fuck off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump's Executive Order won't cause the shovels to start next day. It's just the work gets started on the proposals, design, environmental impact statements, and a host of other issues that have to be dealt with prior to implementation. You are correct, ultimately it must be approved and appropriated by Congress.

His Muslim ban does likely violate the Constitution, and a judge has already suspended it (which Trump says isn't enforceable). But in truth, most Presidents have been slapped down for exceeding their authority by the Courts so that alone doesn't augur one way or the other at this point. If Trump starts outright defy Court orders, which he seems to be doing with this recent issue (maybe), then we will indeed have a real problem.

SLD

I don't think it augurs well to be fighting the courts over the limits of Presidential authority a mere week after being inaugurated. Has that ever happened before? What's the previous record for fewest days in office before having an injunction (or other judicial ruling) overturn a new president's executive order?

To add...it isn't normal at all for executive orders to precede congressional legislation and presidential signing. Normally, executive orders follow established law and are about particulars of implementation. Normally. So, I also wonder how often these executive orders come out as soon as a President takes office where the first executive order is something new.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

To add...it isn't normal at all for executive orders to precede congressional legislation and presidential signing. Normally, executive orders follow established law and are about particulars of implementation. Normally. So, I also wonder how often these executive orders come out as soon as a President takes office where the first executive order is something new.

It's also a "look at me, I am doing something" tactic that inflates his ego. The executive orders are like long tweets.

 

[repoman]

Judicial review is an unconstitutional usurpation of power as is the abuse of executive orders.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Judicial review is an unconstitutional usurpation of power as is the abuse of executive orders.

*sigh*

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Judicial review is an unconstitutional usurpation of power as is the abuse of executive orders.

From your video: Newt Gingrich: "There is no supreme court in the American constitution. Congress decides the jurisdiction of the court...It's not Supreme over the Legislative/Executive Branch..."

BUT here's the Constitution:

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)​

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

1: 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;10 —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.​

Emphasis added. The Supreme Court actually IS in the Constitution. Congress does not determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because the Constitution does. Congress only determines the jurisdiction of inferior courts. Those are all inferior, meaning they can all be overruled by the Supreme Court.

Case closed.

 

[repoman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

I think that Trump and the Repubs may finally use this. Hopefully.