Trump just fired the acting Attorney General

[LordKiran]

Because the constitution is built upon the idea that rights are natural, omnipresent, and inalienable. In essence, your rights are not derived from your citizenship, they're inherent to simply being.

No. No. The Constitution does not apply to non-citizens in foreign lands. The Courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over foreign policy. None. Nada. Zilch.  Political question However, the Constitution does apply to all persons in the US, legal or illegal, citizen or not. The executive order was initially overbroad on that count.

Kind of a moot point honestly, given that Trump is in defiance of the constitution as it stands.

 

[fast]

I'm not sure on something that some people seem quite sure about. It has to do with scope. American citizens are granted legal rights. These (what may or may not be natural rights of sorts) are codified into the supreme law of the land. When you speak of the establishment clause, you speak of but a part of an amendment to this law. Never mind right or wrong for a moment, as there's no moral argument at play in honing in on what I'm not sure about, which is strictly a legal issue pertaining to the applicability of this nations highest document concerning the issue at hand.

So what if a non-citizen is refused entry on practically any basis? How is it that we are legally obligated to treat non-citizens identical to how we treat citizens who are afforded legally granted constitutional rights?

Because the constitution is built upon the idea that rights are natural, omnipresent, and inalienable. In essence, your rights are not derived from your citizenship, they're inherent to simply being.

One thing I remember about legal rights is that they're a creature of law. There are rights in a lawless society, but no lawless society have legal rights, as legal rights are a function of law. We're not talking merely about rights but rights of a particular kind--legal rights.

- - - Updated - - -

No. No. The Constitution does not apply to non-citizens in foreign lands. The Courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over foreign policy. None. Nada. Zilch.  Political question However, the Constitution does apply to all persons in the US, legal or illegal, citizen or not. The executive order was initially overbroad on that count.

Kind of a moot point honestly, given that Trump is in defiance of the constitution as it stands.

People not here wanting to come here are people that are elsewhere.

 

[LordKiran]

Because the constitution is built upon the idea that rights are natural, omnipresent, and inalienable. In essence, your rights are not derived from your citizenship, they're inherent to simply being.

One thing I remember about legal rights is that they're a creature of law. There are rights in a lawless society, but no lawless society have legal rights, as legal rights are a function of law. We're not talking merely about rights but rights of a particular kind--legal rights.

And in that legal system, Trump's ban has been (At least in part) refuted by the judicial branch. He is in defiance of the very system you mention. Ironic for a man who ran as the law-and-order president.

 

[fast]

No. No. The Constitution does not apply to non-citizens in foreign lands. The Courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over foreign policy. None. Nada. Zilch.  Political question However, the Constitution does apply to all persons in the US, legal or illegal, citizen or not. The executive order was initially overbroad on that count.

Kind of a moot point honestly, given that Trump is in defiance of the constitution as it stands.

People not here wanting to come here are people that are elsewhere.

 

[LordKiran]

Kind of a moot point honestly, given that Trump is in defiance of the constitution as it stands.

People not here wanting to come here are people that are elsewhere.

Which does not in any way address my statement. Trump is in defiance of the constitution. That's a statement of fact.

 

[Trausti]

People not here wanting to come here are people that are elsewhere.

Which does not in any way address my statement. Trump is in defiance of the constitution. That's a statement of fact.

But his executive order covering those who are not already in the US or its territories is not unconstitutional.

 

[LordKiran]

Which does not in any way address my statement. Trump is in defiance of the constitution. That's a statement of fact.

But his executive order covering those who are not already in the US or its territories is not unconstitutional.

Apparently certain judges think otherwise. Wether you agree with said judges or not makes zero difference. Trump is defying judicial orders. That is unconstitutional. But really Trump has been wiping his ass with the constitution even before now...

 

[Trausti]

But his executive order covering those who are not already in the US or its territories is not unconstitutional.

Apparently certain judges think otherwise. Wether you agree with said judges or not makes zero difference. Trump is defying judicial orders. That is unconstitutional. But really Trump has been wiping his ass with the constitution even before now...

Don't think any judge thinks otherwise.

We are sympathetic to the plight of Petitioners and other aliens who have come to this country seeking protection and repose from dangers that they sincerely believe their own governments are unable or unwilling to address. Nevertheless, Congress has unambiguously limited the scope of judicial review, and in so doing has foreclosed review of Petitioners' claims. And in light of the undisputed facts surrounding Petitioners' surreptitious entry into this country, and considering Congress' and the Executive's plenary power over decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of aliens, we cannot say that this limited scope of review is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, at least as to Petitioners and other aliens similarly situated. We will therefore affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petitioners' habeas petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/161339p.pdf

 

[Warpoet]

Don't think any judge thinks otherwise.

No judge has weighed in in any official capacity yet, beyond the temporary stays, but plenty of people familiar with the law think this is either illegal or that parts of it are. And the case you keep referencing deals with a separate issue.

But, as always, Trausti, your constant need to defend bigotry and intolerance, even if it means running interference for a fucking disgrace to our species like Donald Trump, never fails to amaze.

 

[Trausti]

Don't think any judge thinks otherwise.

No judge has weighed in in any official capacity yet, beyond the temporary stays, but plenty of people familiar with the law think this is either illegal or that parts of it are. And the case you keep referencing deals with a separate issue.

But, as always, Trausti, your constant need to defend bigotry and intolerance, even if it means running interference for a fucking disgrace to our species like Donald Trump, never fails to amaze.

Golly, that's all you ever do, it seems. When arguments don't go your way, start the name calling and motivation questioning. I've mentioned in this and the other thread that persons in the US are entitled to Constitutional rights. And I've also pointed out that persons who are not in the US, and are not citizens, enjoy no Constitutional rights. That is the correct statement of the law. You've not shown anything to the contrary.

 

[Warpoet]

Golly, that's all you ever do, it seems. When arguments don't go your way, start the name calling and motivation questioning. I've mentioned in this and the other thread that persons in the US are entitled to Constitutional rights. And I've also pointed out that persons who are not in the US, and are not citizens, enjoy no Constitutional rights. That is the correct statement of the law. You've not shown anything to the contrary.

SCOTUS doesn't agree with you, and has maintained that the executive branch must have bona fide reasons for denying entry to the country, citizen or not. And pardon me if I take their word more seriously than some fucking anonymous troll who claims to have a law degree.

 

[Trausti]

Golly, that's all you ever do, it seems. When arguments don't go your way, start the name calling and motivation questioning. I've mentioned in this and the other thread that persons in the US are entitled to Constitutional rights. And I've also pointed out that persons who are not in the US, and are not citizens, enjoy no Constitutional rights. That is the correct statement of the law. You've not shown anything to the contrary.

SCOTUS doesn't agree with you, and has maintained that the executive branch must have bona fide reasons for denying entry to the country, citizen or not. And pardon me if I take their word more seriously than some fucking anonymous troll who claims to have a law degree.

What SCOTUS doesn't agree with me? You mean Vox, right? Not SCOTUS. To put this in perspective, say Ivan in Moscow wants to come to the US. The US Embassy there denies him a visa. Can Ivan then sue to reverse that decision? Of course, not. The Courts don't handle visas or immigration policy. And as an alien in a foreign land, he has no Constitutional rights. Where does Ivan even sue for that, anyway? As much as you obviously hate it, the US, like every other country, gets to decide who comes in and who doesn't.

 

[LordKiran]

Apparently certain judges think otherwise. Wether you agree with said judges or not makes zero difference. Trump is defying judicial orders. That is unconstitutional. But really Trump has been wiping his ass with the constitution even before now...

Don't think any judge thinks otherwise.

We are sympathetic to the plight of Petitioners and other aliens who have come to this country seeking protection and repose from dangers that they sincerely believe their own governments are unable or unwilling to address. Nevertheless, Congress has unambiguously limited the scope of judicial review, and in so doing has foreclosed review of Petitioners' claims. And in light of the undisputed facts surrounding Petitioners' surreptitious entry into this country, and considering Congress' and the Executive's plenary power over decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of aliens, we cannot say that this limited scope of review is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, at least as to Petitioners and other aliens similarly situated. We will therefore affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petitioners' habeas petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/161339p.pdf

You keep dodging the issue. Why so hesitant to stay on topic? Are you either unable or unwilling to admit that Trump is currently breaking the law?

 

[Warpoet]

What SCOTUS doesn't agree with me? You mean Vox, right? Not SCOTUS. To put this in perspective, say Ivan in Moscow wants to come to the US. The US Embassy there denies him a visa. Can Ivan then sue to reverse that decision? Of course, not. The Courts don't handle visas or immigration policy. And as an alien in a foreign land, he has no Constitutional rights. Where does Ivan even sue for that, anyway? As much as you obviously hate it, the US, like every other country, gets to decide who comes in and who doesn't.

I already provided a source referencing the specific case where SCOTUS has called for bona fide reasoning before denying someone entry, whether they're a citizen or not. If you're too lazy, or just too fucking dense, to go do the research yourself, that's your problem.

 

[Trausti]

Don't think any judge thinks otherwise.

We are sympathetic to the plight of Petitioners and other aliens who have come to this country seeking protection and repose from dangers that they sincerely believe their own governments are unable or unwilling to address. Nevertheless, Congress has unambiguously limited the scope of judicial review, and in so doing has foreclosed review of Petitioners' claims. And in light of the undisputed facts surrounding Petitioners' surreptitious entry into this country, and considering Congress' and the Executive's plenary power over decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of aliens, we cannot say that this limited scope of review is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, at least as to Petitioners and other aliens similarly situated. We will therefore affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petitioners' habeas petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/161339p.pdf

You keep dodging the issue. Why so hesitant to stay on topic? Are you either unable or unwilling to admit that Trump is currently breaking the law?

He hasn't broken the law. When the President or governmental agency issues an order or regulation that is later challenged for its breadth, like here, it is simply determined to be overbroad and quashed. For example: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/23/supreme-court-rules-obamas-immigration-order/ But it's not breaking the law. If that were true, every president who had an executive order successfully challenged, and every member of a federal agency that issued regulations later determined to be unconstitutional or overbroad, would be beset with criminal charges. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Trausti]

What SCOTUS doesn't agree with me? You mean Vox, right? Not SCOTUS. To put this in perspective, say Ivan in Moscow wants to come to the US. The US Embassy there denies him a visa. Can Ivan then sue to reverse that decision? Of course, not. The Courts don't handle visas or immigration policy. And as an alien in a foreign land, he has no Constitutional rights. Where does Ivan even sue for that, anyway? As much as you obviously hate it, the US, like every other country, gets to decide who comes in and who doesn't.

I already provided a source referencing the specific case where SCOTUS has called for bona fide reasoning before denying someone entry, whether they're a citizen or not. If you're too lazy, or just too fucking dense, to go do the research yourself, that's your problem.

From that blog.

But who would have a right, or the opportunity, to challenge such a ban, assuming that it would be imposed? No one has a constitutional right to enter the country; that is clear. It probably would require, then, that some Muslims who had already entered the country as refugees – such as the thousands that the Obama administration has been admitting – could make a case that they have a personal stake in remaining, and the only reason for sending them away would be the discriminatory view of their religious faith. And perhaps some refugee service organization that has worked with Muslim refugees could come forward to speak for them in court.

You need to get your eyes checked, Warpoet. This is what I've been saying all along. If in the US, you get Constitutional rights; if not in the US and not a citizen, you don't. Are you really finding this distinction so hard to grasp?

 

[Warpoet]

You've referenced an opinion in Vox. Vox. Not a discussion in any actual precedental legal case; but an opinion piece on a left-leaning website. Well done.

No, that's not the source I'm referring to at all. I posted analysis from a widely respected legal journalist and scholar who reinforced what I've been saying. For an "attorney," you're doing a really shitty job of keeping up with the context of discussions you stick your nose into, and reading the material presented. But again, your problem, not mine.

 

[Trausti]

You've referenced an opinion in Vox. Vox. Not a discussion in any actual precedental legal case; but an opinion piece on a left-leaning website. Well done.

No, that's not the source I'm referring to at all. I posted analysis from a widely respected legal journalist and scholar who reinforced what I've been saying. For an "attorney," you're doing a really shitty job of keeping up with the context of discussions you stick your nose into, and reading the material presented. But again, your problem, not mine.

We've got two dueling threads on this; so I found it in the other, or this one, whatever. Anyway, look at the response above yours.

 

[Warpoet]

Yeah, you've been saying this ad nauseum and it misses the fucking point. Whether or not people from any given country have Constitutional rights is not the same question as whether or not a broad-brush ban is, in and of itself, Constitutional. The Mandel case dealt with a non-citizen who also had no Constitutional rights, and SCOTUS still required valid reasoning for his exclusion. Religious exclusions are even more questionable, due to the First Amendment. This is not some clear-cut issue of unquestionable executive power, Trausti, whether you like it not.

 

[blastula]

Watch Sally Yates answer the question that got her fired by President Trump - The Washington Post

SESSIONS: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you do to things you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper?
A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying: 'Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that?' But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?”


YATES: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.


SESSIONS: Well, that's true. And like any CEO, with a law firm — sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO: 'Mr. CEO, you can't do that. Don't do that. We'll get us sued. It's going to be in violation of the law. You'll regret it, please.' No matter how headstrong they might be. Do you feel like that's the duty on [sic] the attorney general's office?


YATES: I do believe that that's the duty of the attorney general's office, to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and to provide the president and the administration with impartial legal advice.

And that is the Jeff Sessions asking the questions.