Here is what I think regarding the Ban

[WVPATX]

The government certainly could have handled the process better. Trump could have made a statement to the country announcing the steps to be taken and why (to protect the American people). They could have done a better job of identifying the exceptions up front so there was little confusion. Hopefully they learn and get better.

But I am not focused on process. I am focused on policy. Reviewing our vetting is critical. Keeping Americans safe is critical. Hollywood and the media can shriek out all they want but middle American likes a President that pledges to do all he can to keep they and their families safe. This 90 ban to review procedures and methods was mandatory given his campaign pledge.

Obama identified these as the 7 most dangerous countries in the world for promoting terrorism. Easy decision on a temporary ban on them.

Process relatively unimportant. Policy, very important.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Process relatively unimportant. Policy, very important.

Process that circumvents the Constitution and Federal Law is unimportant? Really?

 

[WVPATX]

Process that circumvents the Constitution and Federal Law is unimportant? Really?

I will bet you as much money as you like that this order was PERFECTLY legal. I know enough about prior rulings that gives the President extraordinary latitude when national security is involved. Hell, President Obama argued the very same thing.

Can you imagine a court imposing their very weak knowledge of all the facts influencing national security and then overruling the Commander in Chief, who has all the facts? They would never deign to do that. It is not their job and they know it.

Tell me what parts or the Constitution Trump disobeyed?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Is the order legal?
For judges to issue emergency stays, like those that have already emerged, they must determine that there is a high likelihood that the legal challenge will succeed — meaning that they think the ban is probably legally deficient, at least when applied to people who have already reached the United States and are holding valid papers.

T. Alexander Aleinikoff, a former general counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and a former deputy commissioner of the United Nations refugee agency, said that the ban could conflict with both federal and constitutional law.

The refugee convention, a United Nations treaty that is incorporated into United States law, prohibits discrimination against refugees on the basis of religion. The Immigration and Nationality Act also prohibits such discrimination in the issuance of visas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-muslim-ban.html

Mike Pence, who is now the vice president, wrote on Twitter at the time,“Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.”

Federal judges in four states issued orders over the weekend temporarily forbidding the removal of some individuals who had been targeted by President Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigrants, capping 36 hours of protests and chaos at major U.S. airports.

...federal judge Ann Donnelly granted an emergency stay of removal. In the broad order, Donnelly enjoined the federal government “from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.” Donnelly did not limit the order’s scope to her jurisdiction, effectively making it a nationwide injunction.

I rest my case....

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Process relatively unimportant.

Definition of republic

1. 1a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
   

and governing according to law... you can't play footloose with the law and expect to maintain a Constitutional Republic.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Policy, very important.

Agreed, just follow the law (process).

 

[WVPATX]

Is the order legal?
For judges to issue emergency stays, like those that have already emerged, they must determine that there is a high likelihood that the legal challenge will succeed — meaning that they think the ban is probably legally deficient, at least when applied to people who have already reached the United States and are holding valid papers.

T. Alexander Aleinikoff, a former general counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and a former deputy commissioner of the United Nations refugee agency, said that the ban could conflict with both federal and constitutional law.

The refugee convention, a United Nations treaty that is incorporated into United States law, prohibits discrimination against refugees on the basis of religion. The Immigration and Nationality Act also prohibits such discrimination in the issuance of visas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-muslim-ban.html

Mike Pence, who is now the vice president, wrote on Twitter at the time,“Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.”

Federal judges in four states issued orders over the weekend temporarily forbidding the removal of some individuals who had been targeted by President Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigrants, capping 36 hours of protests and chaos at major U.S. airports.

...federal judge Ann Donnelly granted an emergency stay of removal. In the broad order, Donnelly enjoined the federal government “from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.” Donnelly did not limit the order’s scope to her jurisdiction, effectively making it a nationwide injunction.

I rest my case....

She already ask the DOJ experts to review the ruling and give her their opinion. They did.

Now this…
Justice Department lawyers told Yates President Trump’s travel ban was legal.
She decided to play politics anyway.

Ambassador John Bolton told Lou Dobbs tonight:

It’s being reported the department’s own internal general council, the office of Legal Council, reviewed the executive order and approved of it. So she’s flying in the face of her own best lawyers.

She completely ignored them.

The judge issued a very narrow ruling on those already in the U.S. Very, very narrow.

For judges to issue emergency stays, like those that have already emerged, they must determine that there is a high likelihood that the legal challenge will succeed — meaning that they think the ban is probably legally deficient,at least when applied to people who have already reached the United States and are holding valid papers.

 

[WVPATX]

Agreed, just follow the law (process).

She ignored the law. She ignored the experts in DOJ. If you are so confident, make your bet. I'll match it and we will see who comes out on top. I trust you to make good if you lose and I'll send you my attorney's address to mail the check or the cash, whichever you prefer. You do the same. Protects our anonymity.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

For judges to issue emergency stays, like those that have already emerged, they must determine that there is a high likelihood that the legal challenge will succeed — meaning that they think the ban is probably legally deficient,at least when applied to people who have already reached the United States and are holding valid papers.

...federal judge Ann Donnelly granted an emergency stay of removal. In the broad order, Donnelly enjoined the federal government “from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.” Donnelly did not limit the order’s scope to her jurisdiction, effectively making it a nationwide injunction.

 

[WVPATX]

...federal judge Ann Donnelly granted an emergency stay of removal. In the broad order, Donnelly enjoined the federal government “from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.” Donnelly did not limit the order’s scope to her jurisdiction, effectively making it a nationwide injunction.

Again, very limited ruling. The ban is on refugees from those 9 countries. This order only applies to those already in the country legally.

Moreover, this order can be appealed. Don't assume because one liberal judge issued this order that either the District Court will agree and certainly not SCOTUS.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I will bet you as much money as you like that this order was PERFECTLY legal.

She ignored the law. She ignored the experts in DOJ. If you are so confident, make your bet.

You are changing your position to fit the agenda... Yates may very well be in the wrong and she probably knew it; political grand-standing without a doubt.

There is a high probability that the EO itself will not stand up to a legal challenge, which is unfortunate as I believe it is in the best interest of the US to have better control over immigration FROM ALL COUNTRIES, not just the 7. So taking a 90 to 120 day break to re-adjust is reasonable; the way it was done is probably illegal.

 

[moe]

The government certainly could have handled the process better. Trump could have made a statement to the country announcing the steps to be taken and why (to protect the American people). They could have done a better job of identifying the exceptions up front so there was little confusion. Hopefully they learn and get better.

But I am not focused on process. I am focused on policy. Reviewing our vetting is critical. Keeping Americans safe is critical. Hollywood and the media can shriek out all they want but middle American likes a President that pledges to do all he can to keep they and their families safe. This 90 ban to review procedures and methods was mandatory given his campaign pledge.

Obama identified these as the 7 most dangerous countries in the world for promoting terrorism. Easy decision on a temporary ban on them.

Process relatively unimportant. Policy, very important.

And he names countries that haven't produced a terrorist led strike against the U.S. in 20 years, pretty cool. How about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and some European countries? This move by Trump is mostly about appearances.

 

[WVPATX]

You are changing your position to fit the agenda... Yates may very well be in the wrong and she probably knew it; political grand-standing without a doubt.

There is a high probability that the EO itself will not stand up to a legal challenge, which is unfortunate as I believe it is in the best interest of the US to have better control over immigration FROM ALL COUNTRIES, not just the 7. So taking a 90 to 120 day break to re-adjust is reasonable; the way it was done is probably illegal.

What about the ban will SCOTUS say makes it illegal? You have two of the finest Constitutional Scholars in the Country saying the ban (except for perhaps those already in the country) is legal. Are you smarter than they are? Do you know more about the Constitution than they do? Do you know more about the DOJ lawyers that read the order and deemed it Constitutional?

 

[moe]

The ban is on refugees from those 9 countries.

The information is easy to find, why can't you get this right?
For 120 days, the order bars the entry of any refugee who is awaiting resettlement in the U.S. It also prohibits all Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. until further notice. Additionally, it bans the citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.*

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

What about the ban will SCOTUS say makes it illegal? You have two of the finest Constitutional Scholars in the Country saying the ban (except for perhaps those already in the country) is legal. Are you smarter than they are? Do you know more about the Constitution than they do? Do you know more about the DOJ lawyers that read the order and deemed it Constitutional?

Doubtful that it will get to the SCOTUS. Please provide a link to the two of the finest Constitutional Scholars who say it is legal as I have been unable to find any articles to that extent.

 

[WVPATX]

The information is easy to find, why can't you get this right?
For 120 days, the order bars the entry of any refugee who is awaiting resettlement in the U.S. It also prohibits all Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. until further notice. Additionally, it bans the citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.*

I know what the ban says. I stated factual, that all judicial order thus far have been very narrow. They have not outlawed the ban. They speak only to certain individuals meeting certain conditions. The ban will stand. Moreover, as DOJ experts reported, they felt the ban was Constitutional. They were overruled by the attention *****.

 

[WVPATX]

Doubtful that it will get to the SCOTUS. Please provide a link to the two of the finest Constitutional Scholars who say it is legal as I have been unable to find any articles to that extent.

Two threads are already posted on this board. Look for yourself. Their names are Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, both very, very liberal.

 

[moe]

I know what the ban says

Then try to make posts that make it sound like you do unlike the one that I quoted seeing as much as you like to talk about it.

 

[WVPATX]

Then try to make posts that make it sound like you do unlike the one that I quoted seeing as much as you like to talk about it.

What part about the ban standing, do you not understand? Did any judge overture the EO? NO. They focused on those refugees in a very limited way that they claim have some standing. They are all liberal judges. It is only a 90 day ban, so they orders may not get reviewed. But the VAST majority of the ban is in effect.

 

[moe]

What part about the ban standing, do you not understand?

You're the one posting refugees only and 9 countries repeatedly, I guess obsession doesn't bring focus.

 

[WVPATX]

You're the one posting refugees only and 9 countries repeatedly, I guess obsession doesn't bring focus.

My bad, 7 countries. A minor error in memory.

BTW, do you disagree that the vast majority of people from these 7 countries are impacted by this ban?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Two threads are already posted on this board. Look for yourself. Their names are Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, both very, very liberal.

Neither of these gentlemen have made statements to the legality of the Trump EO that I can find, including the one you posted in another thread; Turley commented on the Yates decision stating it was ill advised and makes one fleeting comment about its Constitutionality; hardly a ringing endorsement.

Appearing on MSNBC Tuesday morning, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley echoed Dershowitz's analysis. "They absolutely had that right. There's no question at all about that," Turley said of the administration removing Yates.

"This is a very curious move by the former acting attorney general in some respects. As you know, I think this executive order was a terrible mistake. I said that seconds after it was signed. But ... the law favors Trump on constitutionality," continued Turley.

The fact is that as an officer of the executive branch, it was Yates' duty to obey the president's order. She did not.

As far as either Dershowitz or Turley being "Constitutional Scholars", I'd call that a bit of a stretch.

Dershowitz:
Famed Harvard Law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz harshly criticized President Trump's immigration ban in an interview with Newsmax on Monday.

"It was badly executed, overbroad, and just not consistent with the best values of what America should be like," he said, before adding:

"I think the whole thing was rolled out very poorly. They apparently never really checked with the lawyers. It could have been crafted in a way that made constitutional challenges more difficult. So, I think the roll out was very unfortunate."

I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on either of these statements.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/liberal-legal-experts-yates-deserved-go/

http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-professor-alan-dershowitz-trump-immigration-ban-2017-1

 

[TarHeelEer]

Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.”

Good thing it isn't a ban on Muslims. This is going to go nowhere.

 

[WVPATX]

Neither of these gentlemen have made statements to the legality of the Trump EO that I can find, including the one you posted in another thread; Turley commented on the Yates decision stating it was ill advised and makes one fleeting comment about its Constitutionality; hardly a ringing endorsement.

Appearing on MSNBC Tuesday morning, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley echoed Dershowitz's analysis. "They absolutely had that right. There's no question at all about that," Turley said of the administration removing Yates.

"This is a very curious move by the former acting attorney general in some respects. As you know, I think this executive order was a terrible mistake. I said that seconds after it was signed. But ... the law favors Trump on constitutionality," continued Turley.

The fact is that as an officer of the executive branch, it was Yates' duty to obey the president's order. She did not.

As far as either Dershowitz or Turley being "Constitutional Scholars", I'd call that a bit of a stretch.

Dershowitz:
Famed Harvard Law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz harshly criticized President Trump's immigration ban in an interview with Newsmax on Monday.

"It was badly executed, overbroad, and just not consistent with the best values of what America should be like," he said, before adding:

"I think the whole thing was rolled out very poorly. They apparently never really checked with the lawyers. It could have been crafted in a way that made constitutional challenges more difficult. So, I think the roll out was very unfortunate."

I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on either of these statements.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/liberal-legal-experts-yates-deserved-go/

http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-professor-alan-dershowitz-trump-immigration-ban-2017-1

Turley:

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Tuesday that President Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens from terror-prone countries is constitutional, adding that the White House "absolutely" had the right to fire acting Attorney General Sally Yates the prior night.

Dershowitz:

Although President Trump's suspension of immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries is bad policy, it could still pass muster in the courts as constitutional, according to author, civil libertarian, and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Sources please.

 

[WVPATX]

Turley:

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Tuesday that President Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens from terror-prone countries is constitutional, adding that the White House "absolutely" had the right to fire acting Attorney General Sally Yates the prior night.

Dershowitz:

Although President Trump's suspension of immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries is bad policy, it could still pass muster in the courts as constitutional, according to author, civil libertarian, and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Google is your friend, easy to find. You're a bright guy. Well, maybe you're aren't:

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...n-ban-constitutional-admin-had-right-fire-ag/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Al...y-executed-constitution/2017/01/30/id/771151/

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Turley:

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Tuesday that President Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens from terror-prone countries is constitutional, adding that the White House "absolutely" had the right to fire acting Attorney General Sally Yates the prior night.

Dershowitz:

Although President Trump's suspension of immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries is bad policy, it could still pass muster in the courts as constitutional, according to author, civil libertarian, and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Further proof of your lacking comprehension skills and choice of what you would consider "Constitutional Scholars". Amazingly, Constitutional Scholar is something that can be verified and requires specific performance in Constitutional Law to be considered a Constitutional Scholar; neither Turley nor Dershowitz qualify.

"United States constitutional law scholars"
The following 18 pages are in this category, out of 18 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

A

• Diane Marie Amann

B

• Carl Bogus

C

• Thomas M. Cooley
• Vern Countryman

G

• Kevin Gutzman

L

• Justin Levitt

M

• Joyce Lee Malcolm
• John McGinnis
• Martha Minow

P

• Richard Painter
• James Pfander
• Robert Post (law professor)

R

• Martin Redish
• Lori Ringhand
• Jed Rubenfeld

S

• Joseph Story

T

• Laurence Tribe

W

• Adam Winkler

Turley is a low-level mouth-piece for hire as best I can tell and has little standing in the legal community.

Now let's look at Dershowitz, who offers no personal opinion on the EO;

could
ko͝od,kəd/
verb
modal verb: could

1. past of can1.
   • used to indicate possibility.
     "they could be right"

Same probability that "they could be wrong". IE: "Marshall could win the NCAA Basketball National Championship!" Well of course they "could", will they? Doubtful.

I think Constitutional Law is not your area of expertise and not mine either so let's leave that to the courts and "real Constitutional Scholars", like one on the list above.

 

[va87eer]

The government certainly could have handled the process better. Trump could have made a statement to the country announcing the steps to be taken and why (to protect the American people). They could have done a better job of identifying the exceptions up front so there was little confusion. Hopefully they learn and get better.

But I am not focused on process. I am focused on policy. Reviewing our vetting is critical. Keeping Americans safe is critical. Hollywood and the media can shriek out all they want but middle American likes a President that pledges to do all he can to keep they and their families safe. This 90 ban to review procedures and methods was mandatory given his campaign pledge.

Obama identified these as the 7 most dangerous countries in the world for promoting terrorism. Easy decision on a temporary ban on them.

Process relatively unimportant. Policy, very important.

Hopefully there is a lesson learned for the administration in this. If DT involves his staff, and they pull in the correct expertise, implementation can be improved. Some fine tuning of the wording and being sure to consider the impact scenarios will improve implementation significantly.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Further proof of your lacking comprehension skills and choice of what you would consider "Constitutional Scholars". Amazingly, Constitutional Scholar is something that can be verified and requires specific performance in Constitutional Law to be considered a Constitutional Scholar; neither Turley nor Dershowitz qualify.

"United States constitutional law scholars"

Impossible, must be fake news. Obama is not on the list.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Impossible, must be fake news. Obama is not on the list.

[roll][roll][cheers]

 

[WVPATX]

Hopefully there is a lesson learned for the administration in this. If DT involves his staff, and they pull in the correct expertise, implementation can be improved. Some fine tuning of the wording and being sure to consider the impact scenarios will improve implementation significantly.

I agree. I hope they learn. I think they get 80% public support vs. the 59% they got it they just rolled this out with more thought.