Perhaps we need this?

It may be the right time for this type of confrontation.

As the Trump administration prepared to challenge a ruling against its executive order on refugees and travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, experts said the US had been brought to the brink of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

“This is an epic confrontation between the presidency and the constitution,” says Marci Hamilton, a constitutional lawyer and scholar of religion at the University of Pennsylvania.

Especially for this reason

At a hearing on Friday in federal court in Alexandria, judge Leonie Brinkema said the executive order had caused chaos. She also sent a warning to Trump.

“There’s no question the president of the United States has almost – almost – unfettered power over foreign policy and border issues,” she said.

“But this is not ‘no limit’.”

Like the use of the AUMF by both G.W. Bush and B.H. Obama as basically a carte blanche

A useful paper to read

When I teach presidential power, the first thing I ask my students is to imagine a different President in office. If they support the current President and believe those who oppose him are doing so for partisan or otherwise illegitimate reasons, they should visualize a President whom they completely distrust. Conversely, if they dislike the current President, they should conceive of the President in power as someone they support and that those opposing him
are acting illegitimately. This exercise is helpful, I believe, for focusing
attention on the underlying constitutional issues rather than upon the wisdom,
or lack thereof, of a particular President’s policies.

Two hundred years later, any suggestion that Congress is twice as powerful
as the executive would be deemed ludicrous. Particularly in the areas of
national security and foreign affairs, the Presidency has become the far more powerful branch. In 2006, for example, a new Congress was elected based in large part on the desire of the American people to get out of an unpopular war. Yet, the President was able to use his authority to continually out maneuver the newly-elected Congress and pursue a war that even many of those in his own party opposed.

After all SCOTUS has become naught but a political football as the screams by the party faithful can attest, if they win the Presidency they get SCOTUS! Judges picked to satisfy partisan needs rather than constitutional ones.

I have long argued for restrictions of executive power and the counter arguments follow the third quote so closely/inversely as to be not funny.

I quote the AUMF because it basically allows any President to conduct unending wars.

In short, the 2001 authorization grants the president a congressional stamp-of-approval to use force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, and those who harbored them. In other words, against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Today, a decade and a half later, the Obama administration argues that the authorization continues to apply to U.S. military actions in Afghanistan. Also, that it applies in Iraq, in Syria, and beyond — including the ongoing air campaign in Libya, against ISIS — a group that did not exist 15 years ago.

Now we have Trump with the same power, just say terror loud enough then the country concerned doesn't matter.

Hence we come to Presidential Diktats [memoranda, orders whatever] where the current occupant and his little Nazi helpers think that is how government is supposed to work; by Presidential decree. He seems to get mightily upset when contradicted by the courts.

I keep telling the party faithful that one day nasty shit like the Patriot Act would be in other hands along with the whole security/spy apparatchik. Their support or detestation of such legislation is purely based on the party of the occupant of the White House. Pathetic. If one thing history has repeatedly taught us is that we should expect the worst from our leaders.

Perhaps it is time for a real constitutional battle, if the President wins this one then expect many more to follow.

Just a thought

Tags: 
Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

...I think Trump would have gotten away with it if he had been just a smidge intelligent. But he only knows fu policy and diplomacy, so his EO blew up. We'll see if it continues to fail on appeal.

Trump is like a kid with a new batch of Christmas toys. He gets to play with it until it breaks, then he has a tantrum and moves onto the next one.

up
0 users have voted.

@Blueslide

up
0 users have voted.
Ken in MN's picture

...held on a Friday night, broadcast on the WWE Network and involve massive publicity, girls in bikinis and a steel cage...

up
0 users have voted.

I want my two dollars!

@Ken in MN

up
0 users have voted.
boriscleto's picture

@Ken in MN

up
0 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

Alligator Ed's picture

up
0 users have voted.
LapsedLawyer's picture

@Alligator Ed But possibly not as much as Joy Ann Reid. (Her twitter account is full of the worst kind of vile McCarthyism directed at anyone who doesn't bow down to the Putin-hacked-the-election meme, and "berniebros", with a side swipe of some not-so-thinly-veiled anti-semitism aimed at Bernie, comparing him to Steve Bannon fercrissakes.)

up
0 users have voted.

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon

@LapsedLawyer is the absolute worst. There's nothing worse than a stupid vile person who gets egged on by other stupid people. She thinks she's righteous, but she's just a reactionary fool. Her fall will be hard and I will enjoy it.

up
0 users have voted.

I'm for blowing it all up. Bring it on.

I really think it (the deep state and political parties) has to be destroyed before we can reclaim and rebuild. They will never go willingly.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

@dkmich out of sheer spite.

up
0 users have voted.

@LaFeminista as it is.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@dfarrah

up
0 users have voted.
Steven D's picture

@LaFeminista Hedge Fund managers are not selling apples on the street yet. So in that sense, I agree with you.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Alligator Ed's picture

up
0 users have voted.
Wink's picture

@dkmich Exactly.

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

to find out why he didn't do the same for BO's EO.

Does anyone here know why?

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@dfarrah

up
0 users have voted.

@LaFeminista Haven't heard back from him yet. Smile

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@dfarrah That's likely on the West Coast. It's all about your Party rather than the Law or the Constitution.

I'm still having trouble understanding why someone in Syria has a Constitutional Right to enter the USA, but someone in Mexico does not.

I can understand if Congress has passed a alaw allowing unfettered immigration up to a quota. Then Trump is violating US Law, not the Constitution. But as the media has reported it, the ME immigrants Constitution Rights were somehow violated by being denied immigration. That's a different kettle of fish from violating US immigration law, which might be an impeachable offense. Still, the injured party would be the US Congress, not the individual would be immigrants.

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

@The Voice In the Wilderness Constitution that non-citizens have the right to enter the USA?

(and I'm not talking about green cards and visas here, I'm just talking about people who have no legal exception that allows them to enter the US.)

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@dfarrah

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

@The Voice In the Wilderness I don't get it.

But we are, apparently, in some sort of constitutional crisis....everyone says so.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@The Voice In the Wilderness immigrant advocate, she is concerned about people who can't 'come home.'

She breathlessly explained "it may be weeks, it may be months" before the issue is resolved.

And the ban is only 3 months.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@dfarrah

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

@The Voice In the Wilderness appointed by GWB. And I believe there's a clause somewhere in the Constitution about a President having a duty not to impeded immigration. Remember now, back in the day "we" were importing people from all over Europe to come here and make money for our plutocrats, so when I read that about the Constitution and thought about it that makes sense.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

@lizzyh7 But you may be right. Can you cite a clause?

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

@The Voice In the Wilderness between immigration and refugee status or seeking asylum. I think we should all be doing our homework about the difference.

up
0 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@dfarrah

When was this?

I don't recall a case ever brought before this judge on any of Obama's Executive Orders, so the answer to your question is probably because there was no such case for him to rule on.

up
0 users have voted.

@CS in AZ that BO was challenged.

From what I have read, BO had a six month ban similar to Trump's.

My question is, why wasn't BO challenged in the courts?

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

Steven D's picture

@dfarrah on Obama's executive orders? If no case, a judge cannot rule on anything.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

@Steven D where are the court orders for restrictions that happened in prior administrations that were similar to Trump's EO?

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

Steven D's picture

@dfarrah if anyone filed a lawsuit challenging his executive orders. Not sure which one you have any particular interest in, as he signed more than a few.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

CS in AZ's picture

@Steven D

I followed your suggestion and it took 2 seconds to find one:

The federal judge who issued a nationwide injunction against President Donald Trump's executive order blocking immigration from seven primarily Muslim nations had a strong precedent to rely upon: The 2015 decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that halted President Barack Obama's order to grant semi-permanent residency status to millions of illegal immigrants.

So President Obama did have at least one EO challenged, and the count ruled against him. I don't think he threw a twitter fit about it, but I could be wrong. Heh

up
0 users have voted.

@CS in AZ But how does a court order denying BO's EO that expanded rights serve as a precedent to a court order that halts Trump's restrictions ?

Am I reading backwards?

Or are you saying that the precedent was set that a judge could deny an EO?

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

CS in AZ's picture

@dfarrah

The judge cited it as a legal precedent for the court to halt a presidential executive order, if said order is challenged in court and the judge(s) determine it should be halted, presumably because they think it is illegal or unconstitutional.

The article you linked to below answers your questions about why Obama's "similar" order wasn't halted by a court order, because first, obviously, it wasn't challenged in court. That may be partly because it wasn't publicized, but even if it had been I doubt it would have been stopped, although it's possible, and it did do harm. At least one person died in Iraq because of it.

But it wasn't the same or even similar to what Trump did. Just a few glaring differences, including...

It applied to only one country and only to new refugee applications, they didn't detain and deport people who were already approved and in transit; already approved refugees continued to be admitted throughout the entire time; it didn't retroactively revoke already approved visas, legal residents, and immigration applications; it did not extend beyond refugees to ban all travel and short-term visitors, and it was done in response to a specific incident that had identified a problem in the refugee vetting process, it was not "preemptive" political posturing after promising for a year to ban an entire population of people from the United States based on their religion.

Trump made the mistake of bragging for his entire campaign that he would ban Muslims, then said they would favor non-Muslim immigration applicants because Christians from those countries need to be let in, and his spokesman Ghouliani admitted on TV that the purpose of the EO was to fulfill Trump's Muslim ban promise "legally" -- oops. Trying to paint it as anything else now is unbelievable. Literally. So they are openly engaging in religious discrimination, just as Trump said he would do, and that is generally frowned upon in this country. Oh yes, and religious discrimination is unconstitutional. Oops again. But Trump isn't concerned about that. Like he said...

But just remember this: Our Constitution is great. But it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay? Now, we have a religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that’s great. And that’s the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it differently.

Trump is well aware that banning people from even visiting this country based on their religion is unconstitutional, but he "views it differently." It seems a lot of people and the courts so far don't agree with him. But Trump will keep appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court and may yet prevail, who knows. SCOTUS isn't exactly stellar on protecting people from discrimination, constitutional or not. We had legal slavery, then legal racial segregation for decades, and legal marriage discrimination until very recently. They may yet give Trump his Muslim ban. Time will tell.

up
0 users have voted.

@CS in AZ linked lists 'differences.'

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

sojourns's picture

@CS in AZ however, murder is acceptable. RE: The elderly traveler who was detained, became ill and died; all due to the ban. That is murder.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

@Steven D order related to immigration.
I found an article, by Politicfact (so take with a grain)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-tr...

From the above:


In 2011, Obama’s state department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months, though it didn’t disclose the policy like Trump did, ABC reported in 2013.

Trump’s ban, meanwhile, is more preemptive.

Second, the scope of the two policies is slightly different. Obama’s 2011 order put a pause on refugee processing, whereas Trump’s halt in entries applies to all non-U.S. visitors.

Per the article, Trump's claim that it is similar to BO's is rated "mostly false."

I guess that depends on how people define 'similar.' Liberals who support BO blindly will nod at anything he does.

It is interesting that BO didn't disclose the action he took.

But, even then, the larger question is why Saudis have not been banned (or were they, after 9-11?)

IMO, from either side, the hysteria is a joke. Countries have every right to restrict entrants to their countries.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@dfarrah

the larger question is why Saudis have not been banned (or were they, after 9-11?)

But your statement that,

Countries have every right to restrict entrants to their countries.

is true within the law. We are a signatory to the 1967 UN Protocol on providing asylum to refugees, as far as I know, and so that agreement is part of our law.

I don't think a President can just say, "I think all people from a particular set of countries are to be considered a threat to our national security until proven otherwise," and then just ignore our legal responsibility to provide refuge.

up
0 users have voted.
Not Henry Kissinger's picture

Torch the Constitution over the exclusion of (what maybe 50,000) potential immigrants? Do you have any understanding of the History of Immigration to this country?

Obama deports at least 2.4 million. - no Constitutional crisis.

2005 Real ID Act passes Congress making it easier to restrict immigration - no Constitutional crisis.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) vastly increased the categories of criminal activity for which immigrants, including green card holders, can be deported and imposed mandatory detention for certain types of deportation cases.- no Constitutional crisis.

The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (the Hart-Celler Act) limits Western Hemisphere immigration (120,000 per year) and Eastern Hemisphere limited to 170,000.- no Constitutional crisis.

In 1941, FDR by EO orders the internment of Japanese Americans in the United States during World War II and the forced relocation and incarceration in camps in the interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[4] people of Japanese ancestry who lived on the Pacific coast. Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.

In 1932 President Hoover and the State Department essentially shut down immigration during the Great Depression as immigration went from 236,000 in 1929 to 23,000 in 1933. This was accompanied by voluntary repatriation to Europe and Mexico, and coerced repatriation and deportation of between 500,000 and 2 million Mexican Americans, mostly citizens, in the Mexican Repatriation. - no Constitutional crisis.

The crucial 1923 Supreme Court case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind created the official stance to classify Indians as non-white, which at the time allowed Indians who had already been naturalized to be retroactively stripped of their citizenship after prosecutors argued that they had gained their citizenship illegally. - no Constitutional crisis.

In 1921 the United States Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act, which established national immigration quotas. The quotas were based on the number of foreign-born residents of each nationality who were living in the United States as of the 1910 census. - no Constitutional crisis.

And let's not even talk about the 19th century.

Not that any of these exclusions/deportations/incarcerations should be morally or even Constitutionally permissible, but to pull down the entire framework of our government over a relatively minor Presidential action shows a complete lack of historical perspective and understanding of the consequences such a destruction would entail.

Don't be a sucker. The people arguing to rip up the Constitution are not your friends nor the friends of Middle Eastern refugees. They are playing on your Trump hatred to create any pretext to remove the last legal impediments to full on corporate dictatorship,

Or would you rather sacrifice the Bill of Rights so that the families of a few thousand Syrian mercenaries can live peacefully under the tender mercies of our financial overlords?

up
0 users have voted.

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

@Not Henry Kissinger what these people are doing.

The repubs already want a constitutional convention as it is, well before this 'crisis.'

And they probably have the numbers to get it going.

Who is behind all of the hysteria? Is it really driven by establishment types (dem or repub) who would like to blow up the constitution?

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

@dfarrah Who is behind all of the hysteria? Is it really driven by establishment types (dem or repub) who would like to blow up the constitution?

and a lot of well meaning but tragically naive people are falling for it.

up
0 users have voted.

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

@Not Henry Kissinger @LaFeminista

Giving the banksters free reign again is going to make a pop in that bubble.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

k9disc's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger - Great comment.

The goal is to give self governance a black eye and usher in a "benevolent corporate dictatorship" to replace the "failed experiment of democracy".

First time I've really seen it spat out in brass tacks. I'm with you, NHK.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Big Al's picture

Abolish the presidency.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Big Al You know, the one that brought the UK Maggie Thatcher and Tony "I'm with Bill" Blair.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

@Alligator Ed

up
0 users have voted.
Steven D's picture

who ruled against the Trump ban, the video is available here:
http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trum...

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

elmo's picture

is limited to a handful of countries for a limited period. But if all goes well, they'd expand that list of countries and the time period will become indefinite...forever, basically.

This was the tip of the spear.

up
0 users have voted.

Even the smallest person can change the course of the future

elmo's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Even the smallest person can change the course of the future

Steven D's picture

This doesn't constitute a constitutional crisis. Trump issued executive order. Judge issued TRO against enforcement (see my post up-thread where you can see video of the oral argument before that District Judge, a Bush appointee). Trump DOJ is appealing order to 9th Cir. Court of Appeals who refused to stay TRO (i.e., delay enforcement), and then asked parties to prepare briefs on why or why not they should uphold or reverse Dist. Judge's ruling granting TRO. Government is abiding by TRO for time being.

If Trump ordered people not to obey Judge's ruling, that would be a constitutional crisis, but we aren't there yet.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Roy Blakeley's picture

@Steven D The injunctions prevent persons from the named countries that have valid visas from being denied entry into the US. They leave intact a number of provisions of the executive order. I suggest people read the actual EO because it is difficult to get accurate, unbiased reporting on this (and on most things having to do with the Trump administration). There is no ban on Muslims, no restrictions on people from most predominantly Muslim countries. There is a substantial amount of injustice in that the affected countries are mostly countries that the previous US administrations have royally screwed, and therefore refugee status is warranted in many cases for people from these countries.

up
0 users have voted.

@Steven D @Steven D @Steven D @Steven D @Steven D

Trump issued an Executive Order. A court said his EO is unconstitutional. He's appealing the court decision to a higher court. This is standard operating procedure. This is not George Wallace (no relation) standing in the door of a school to prevent integration in defiance of a court decision.

Alternative facts about Trump--and from a professor, no less. Somehow, I think I know who Prof. Marci supported for POTUS in November.

This, too, is nonsense:

Only the fact that the Department of Justice did not file for an emergency stay on Friday night kept a constitutional crisis from developing, Hamilton said. It began the process on Saturday evening but for now, following chaos at airports last weekend, the doors to the US are once again open to vetted refugees and people with valid papers from the seven predominantly Muslim countries named in Trump’s executive order.

Nothing about seeking a stay from a court on an emergency basis creates a constitutional crisis. This, too, is SOP, even if the D of J chose not to seek one. As long as the Executive is recognizing the proper role of the Judicial Branch in this, there is zero Constitutional crisis. If the Executive had simply disobeyed the order, that might be a Constitutional problem.

I don't have a lot of use for Trump, but I don't have a lot of use for people who know better talking nonsense, either.

As an aside, The Guardian mentions something about Trump violating the Fourteenth Amendment. I'd be interested to know precisely which provision of the 14th amendment Trump is alleged to have violated.

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

up
0 users have voted.
Steven D's picture

@HenryAWallace and Due Process clauses for people who reside in US under a Visa or green card, or people who traveled but whose visas to return was still effective until ban.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

@Steven D

and POTUS is federal government, not state. The due process clause that binds the federal government is in Amendment 5 in the bill of rights.

See also https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5bfrag3_user.html

up
0 users have voted.
Steven D's picture

@HenryAWallace I went for the shoot from the hip analysis. Never a good thing.

Ok, here is text of 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

TH US Supreme Court in the Bolling case held that equal protection is subsumed within the Due Process clause of the Fifth amendment. So, for purposes of the 5th amendment re: Trump's executive order, the question to be resolved is whether the 5th's due process clause, including equal protection rights, applies to individual foreign aliens who hold visas, whether or not those people have ever entered the US?

I would argue it does not apply to people who have not yet been issued visas, as they have no inherent right under the constitution to be granted entry to the US. Numerous past immigration cases decided by federal courts, including SCOTUS, have supported the power of Congress and President to ban immigration of people from other countries or deny the issuance of a visa for any or no reason at all.

However, once a right has been extended - here a foreign national in the form of a visa granting entry onto the country - the question becomes murkier. Most courts have held that people currently in US, lawfully or not, are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law. The issue is whether the government can rescind the rights granted to visa holders who have not yet entered the country or have left but still have a valid visa granting them the right to re-entry, without violating equal protection and due process rights under the Fifth.

The next question is who can assert those rights? Can states assert them or only the individuals affected? That is the claim at the heart of the TRO granted by the Dist. Judge in the state of Washington.

The states of Washington and Minnesota asserted those rights on behalf of individual visa holders and/or (I believe this is their argument based on watching the video of the hearing on their motion for a TRO) people granted refugee status but who were denied admission into the country by the Trump ban. The states asserted the rights of the visa holders, and people granted refugee status pursuant to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) based on two grounds:

1) The states ability to stand in for visa holders and approved refugees under the parens patriae doctrine, which they claim applies to any resident of the state citizen or not, including visa holders. They also 2) asserted standing to sue under their right as states to claim harm on their own behalf as a result of the ban based on injury to the their territorial sovereignty rights (here loss of income from foreign nationals who were college students as well as foreign residents who would pay taxes in the states and various other costs in which state funds were expended on behalf of travel for visa holder and refugees paid for by the states).

Both of these are questions (i.e., standing under the the parens patriae doctrine and the under harm to state's territorial sovereignty) are ones that have not been decided before, as far as I know, in the contest of foreign nationals who hold visas permitting them to enter and reside in the US and refugees already approved for entry under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Here is the DOJ's memorandum brief opposing the TRO before the Disrict Court in Washington if you are inclined to see what arguments they likely will be making on appeal before the 9th Circuit after the Dist. Court judge granted the TRO.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/04/17-35105%20moti...

Needless to say, they claim the states have no right to challenge the President's authority on executive orders regarding immigration matters under Federal Law, nor do the states have standing to challenge Trump's order and raise those issues as to violations of due process and equal protection, as well as the claimed 1st amendment establishment clause violation, on behalf of individual refugees and existing visa holders, under either the parens patriae doctrine or the states' territorial sovereignty claim.

And here is the written copy of the TRO that supports the Judges ruling from the bench:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/03/17-141_TRO_orde...

These issues are the ones to be decided on appeal before the 9th Circuit:

1) Whether the states had standing to assert these Fifth and First amendment rights on behalf of existing visa holders and approved refugees and themselves as sovereigns, and

2) Whether the TRO was justified under the standards in the 9th circuit for determining whether an injunction may be issued against Trump and the Federal Government before a final decision on the merits of the case by the courts.

The [US Supreme Court in the Winter case] held that plaintiffs employing the traditional test for injunctive relief must demonstrate: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships favors the plaintiff; and (4) the public interest favors an injunction.

The alternative standard still employed in the 9th Circuit requires equity highly favoring the plaintiffs (in this case the states) along with raising a serious question going to the merits in order to preserve the "status quo" before a full trial can be held and the case adjudicated. The Judge in his TRO stated that both standards for granting an injunction were met by the states.

In the meantime, people who have been issued visas (and possibly approved refugees under USRAP?) before the ban was stayed are being allowed to enter the country until the 9th Circuit reaches a decision on appeal of the the TRO granted by Dist. Judge James L. Robart.

I hope that satisfies your curiosity regarding the legal questions involved.

The equal protection and due process questions (as well as the 1st Amendment establishment clause issue) are more complicated and would require far more analysis than I have time for in the reply. Suffice it to say, Judge Robarts found that those claims were valid and ones on which the states were likely to succeed on the merits. He did not detail in his written order granting the TRO his specific reasoning for that finding.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

@Steven D @Steven D

America was already recognized as being lawless.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140915/09500928521/canadian-news-out...

Canadian News Outlet Warns Canadians That US Law Enforcement Officers Will Pull Them Over And Seize Their Cash
from the US-outed-as-serial-abuser dept

The exploitation of asset seizure/forfeiture laws by law enforcement isn't anything new, but it is receiving a lot more attention thanks to an extensive exploration of the subject by the Washington Post. The findings are astonishing/sickening. Over the last 13 years, nearly 62,000 cash seizures have been made by law enforcement officers, resulting in a $2.5 billion haul. And that's just the cash. Depending on local laws, people who have had their cash seized may also lose their vehicles, houses and access to any bank accounts.

Only one-sixth of those whose cash has been seized have engaged in the expensive process necessary to retrieve their money. Nearly half of those who make this attempt have their funds returned, which indicates that many of the cash seizures are predicated on tenuous legal ground (to put it very nicely). But even more bad news awaits should a citizen fight an uphill battle against an infinitely-funded opponent: in many cases, the responding governments only offer back half of what was seized and force citizens to sign a release agreement promising not to sue before they'll hand over the check.

The abusive farce that is asset forfeiture has now reached critical mass: CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) has issued a warning to Canadian travelers. Senior Washington Correspondent Neil MacDonald posted this bluntly-titled article late last week. (via Boing Boing, which also gives us this great phrase: "robbery at badgepoint")

American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money

In it, he cautions Canadians that visiting the US with a bunch of cash on hand is a good way to end up short on funds. He points out that the Canadian government has no law limiting the amount of cash Canadians can take into or out of the country, but that has no bearing on what any local police force inside the US would consider to be the "legal" amount of cash a person -- especially a foreign citizen -- can carry. After all, half the seizures were for less than $8,800 and that number includes a college graduate (with no criminal record) who was relieved of $2,500 given to him by his parents to make a trip to California for a job interview.

MacDonald boils down his travel advice to a few bullet points that may help Canadians avoid becoming victims of government-approved theft. ...

... One prosecutor used seized cash to defend herself against a lawsuit brought by people whose cash she seized.

Nice work, drug and terror warriors. America is swiftly becoming the First World's Mos Eisely. Everything remotely connected with drug enforcement or counterterrorism carries with it the stench of corruption and abuse. Canadians will now drive through the US like suburbanites who have found themselves on the "wrong" side of town: windows up, doors locked, eyes fixed dead ahead and at a speed just fast enough to deter interaction but not fast enough to draw undue attention.

Although the phrasing here is a little more direct and I kinda like it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-24/canada-warns-its-citizens-not-t...

Canada Warns Its Citizens Not To Take Cash To The USA

by Tyler Durden
Sep 24, 2014

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics

The Canadian government has had to warn its citizens not to carry cash to the USA because the USA does not presume innocence but guilt when it comes to money. Over $2.5 billion has been confiscated from Canadians traveling to the USA, funding the police who grab it.

If you are bringing cash to the land of the free, you will find that that saying really means they are FREE to seize all your money under the pretense you are engaged in drugs with no evidence or other charges.

It costs more money in legal fees to try to get it back so it is a boom business for unethical lawyers to such an extent than only one in sixth people ever try to get their money back and the cops just pocket it. That’s right. Money confiscated is usually allowed to be kept by the department who confiscated it.

This is strangely working its way into funding police and pensions.

This is identical to the very issue that resulted in the final collapse of Rome when the armies began to sack cities to pay for their pensions. We are at that level now with respect to seizing whatever they want knowing you will have to spend more in legal fees to assert your rights that do not really exist.

Those trying to flee tyranny elsewhere can not bring money with them for the police get to take it on this end.

This pretend war on terrorism is really a wholesale war against the people. It serves as the justification to seize whatever they desire ever since 9/11 as reported by the Washington Post.

And now there's a global push to remove physical or any control of personal currency from citizens everywhere, by forcing a 'cashless society' allowing hackers/internet/power outage/criminal banks to lose/seize every penny any/everyone owns, with Obama apparently giving US banks carte blanche to seize depositor's money every time they recklessly crash themselves...

And there's no point in Americans voting for actual representatives in rigged elections, especially because now Homeland InSecurity has removed elections from any citizen/independent oversight or investigation.

Boycott all criminal corporations literally for your lives - that's one thing that might actually help, in this final looting phase.

Cool that this just started playing, lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog

Muse - Uprising [Official Video]

Edit: I had an impression that the 2 & 1/2 billion cash stolen was, at that point, total, not just what was stolen specifically from Canadians, as seems to be shown by the CBC article I finally found. But the point remains in their final paragraph, below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-shakedown-police-won-t-charge-you-...

Analysis
American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money
U.S. police are operating a co-ordinated scheme to seize as much of the public’s cash as they can

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Sep 11, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 11, 2014 5:00 AM ET

'... As the Canadian government notes, there is no law against carrying it here or any legal limit on how much you can carry. But if you’re on an American roadway with a full wallet, in the eyes of thousands of cash-hungry cops you’re a rolling ATM.'

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Doesn't protect Americans or Canadian and other tourists, does it? Although corporations are, no doubt, still considered persons having property and other protections under law.

When police are 'legally' allowed to rob citizens and tourists and the fact of them having any legal protections can be argued against under 'law', that ain't law.

Yes, there's room to further deteriorate under Trump, but maybe not all that much anymore.

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Steven D

Thank you so much, Steven D, for all that work, but my comment was considerably simpler and much more specific.

Part of my first reply to you

As an aside, The Guardian mentions something about Trump violating the Fourteenth Amendment. I'd be interested to know precisely which provision of the 14th amendment Trump is alleged to have violated.

My second reply to you was:

Section 1 of the 14th amendment applies to states

@Steven D

and POTUS is federal government, not state. The due process clause that binds the federal government is in Amendment 5 in the bill of rights.

See also https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5bfrag3_user.html

That Cornell article to which I linked speaks of the 5th, which applies to the federal government, subsuming (whatever that means) part of the 14th, which applies to the states (adopted almost a hundred years after the 5th, but arguing with the Supremes on a message board about the Constitution is pointless.) And of the Bolling case. I was not questioning any of that.

However, even if the 5th subsumes the 14th, you would still allege that Trump violated the fifth. You don't allege that he violated something that, by its own language, applies only to states (state governments and their "instrumentalities").

In all, I still don't know precisely which provision of the 14th Trump is alleged to have violated, which is what I said I wanted to know. IMO, anyone who writes about Constitutional cases for a publication like The Guardian should have explained that.

Even though my question stands, I very much appreciate all your effort. It's just great to have something like your post on a board. Thanks again.

up
0 users have voted.
Steven D's picture

@HenryAWallace You were right to say the 14th amend. is not the applicable one here, but the fifth since this is action by the federal government.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

@Steven D @Steven D

among other violations. That is what prompted by comment.

People who report on legal matters for a publication like The Guardian are supposed to know some basics, like the 14th am., by its own terms, applies to states. So, if they say the claims against a POTUS include violations of the 14th, they should add at least a few explanatory words in a parenthetical.

Look at all the painstaking work you did and you are not getting paid to get it right. They are. (My frustration with media is great.)

Again, great post. Thank you.

up
0 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace @HenryAWallace

Makes you kinda wonder if that misattribution of the applicable legal basis was planned to discredit the grounds for protest with people who might then not look further? That's the sort of thing that has been done a lot, misrepresent things, mix truth with lies/disinformation, in polluting industry and political propaganda, that being exactly what we've been dealing with, propagated by the corporate media.

Edit: since the check and balance system has been corrupted, likely only public demand will call for justice of any kind - and The People do outnumber the Greeds by far. No public outcry, no chance of any legal restraint being imposed or of any positive change...

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

k9disc's picture

the Globetrotter's pocket, your opponent can showboat with impunity -- traveling? Never heard of it.

Pretty soon your pants are around your ankles and you're lying in a pretzel on the floor. Kind of hard to lead from that position.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

inaccurate and detrimental. Edit: reply to @blueslide

Trump's not the slickest fish in the can (rough edges and bluster, much?), but it's foolhardy to underestimate his basic intelligence and canny sense of his audience. Nor do we know who "runs" him, as all presidents are run by factions of TPTB. The man is methodically checking off items on the list of things he said he'd do, basically by fiat via Executive Branch overreach thanks to unitary executive powers enlarged by his predecessors, including Obama--the constitutional scholar.

It's necessary, I think, to stow the anger we feel, knowing that Bernie would have won, and imagine Obama being so methodical about ticking off his campaign pledges instead of abandoning them with whiplash speed. Then look at who's fundraising and organizing "resistance" (and "Resistance" with that capital letter that references acts of courage while suggesting yet again that Trump et al. are Hitler and Nazis, a tidy PR feat in one word).

Before I left TOP in the Great Exodus, I several times made this point: that the president has extensive powers to act without Congress if he has the will, through enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of existing laws and regulations, agency appointments, and of course, executive orders, though EOs are vulnerable to being overturned easily by a successor. If they're popular, however, EOs become more difficult to nullify. Whenever Hillary fans dismissed Bernie as selling puppies and rainbows because he'd be hamstrung with a Republican Congress--as they claimed Obama was--I made this point. And was greeted with ridicule, along with defense of Obama's multiple failures to act, excused by an obstructionist Congress.

Perhaps the most important time to have stopped this exec overreach was, as noted by La Feminista, with Bush II and AUMF. Bernie was one of few who vocally opposed it. The purported opposition party--Democrats--didn't do it. Most Dems joined in the flag-waving and browbeating of War Is Not the Answer demonstrators and supported the Orwellian-named Patriot Act.

This could indeed be just the time for a constitutional crisis. But in today's environment, with all that the Democrats allowed to happen in government and even cheered, the outcome of such a crisis is not at all clear.

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

@2andfro

The money people found that controlling one person in the Oval Office is much easier than controlling 535 in Congress, plus one in the Oval Office. When Trump was elected, Republicans made a lot of noise about Article I (Congressional) powers being a priority (as opposed to Presidential powers). So far, I'm not seeing it with Trump, but it's still early in his term.

up
0 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

@HenryAWallace This congress does anyway. They don't have to take the heat for the crap that they want. Let Trump be the whipping boy and when the right has what they want, then they'll impeach him leaving Mr. Whitebread, Pence.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

@sojourns

been wrong before when making predictions. For example, the other evening, I happened upon a post of mine (on another board)agreeing with down ticket Republicans who had expressed the fear that then presumptive nominee Trump would hurt down ticket Republicans. Instead, they had historic wins. I was also wrong predicting on this board that Hillary would win in a landslide. Much earlier, I had predicted on another board that she would lose. I should have stuck with my original assessment!

up
0 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace

What with all of the voter suppression and other electoral cheating going on between the halves of the Two-Faced Trade-Off Party, maybe it was just Their Turn to enact what TPTB wanted?

Your guess might well have been dead on in reality but, as the Sane Progressive pointed out, we'll never really be able to know who actually won any US election on actual votes.

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Ellen North

(Actually, it was more of an assessment than a guess.) I had to have been wrong on one and right on the other. As it was, my first thought was correct. I even had at least one of the right reasons: Hillary did not draw enough Democrats to the polls. Obama drew millions more. I had more considerations than that, but this is not the time to go over it in detail.

Yes, she drew enough Democrats to the polls to win the popular vote, but that is not how Presidential elections are won. Outside blue states, she was not a draw, maybe even a repellent.

However, at the time I made my first decision, probably in 2013, I did not know who would be the Republican nominee. By the time I landed on this board, around June 2016, I knew about the crass lunatic who is now our President. I thought sure defeating him would bring people of all parties to the polls to vote for Hillary, even if she was uninspiring and disliked, or for a new party candidate--anybody but Trump. That is where I erred. I should have stuck with my first assessment.

up
0 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace @HenryAWallace

What with all of the voter suppression and other electoral cheating going on between the halves of the Two-Faced Trade-Off Party, maybe it was just Their Turn to enact what TPTB wanted?

Your guess might well have been dead on in reality but, as the Sane Progressive pointed out, we'll never really be able to know who actually won any US election on actual votes.

This keeps showing as the essay reply? And had this multiple times this evening...

Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Additionally, a 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Edit: lol, the system apparently did get the first one through and, smiling, it then, fell dead?

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Ellen North

That is the reason that I wrote this essay: http://caucus99percent.com/content/time-re-fight-most-recent-battle-read...

I've been getting that message today, too, including when I tried to save a batch of edits I'd made to an essay I'm drafting. I have no idea why, but it is frustrating.

up
0 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace @HenryAWallace

Thanks! I'd seen that essay and thread before and appreciated the opportunity to peruse it again.

All I can say is that private parties have no business controlling the electoral choice of the public, and that if they're held to bear no responsibility for engaging in democratic behaviour in the democratic processes, then they should be appropriately also held as being too irresponsible a Party to be involved in the electoral process in any manner other than that of a private club, with no possibility of adversely impinging on the lives and rights of others.

Edited for my trademark, the typical typo-ed letter... that, and the forehead dents I put in my desk...

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

sojourns's picture

@HenryAWallace

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

@sojourns

Yesterday, I spoke with someone living outside New England who had a Super Bowl party Sunday for mostly Patriots' fans. Everyone but his girlfriend left before the start of the fourth quarter.

up
0 users have voted.
Strife Delivery's picture

I'm no constitutional scholar, but is this really a constitutional crisis?

That seems overblown to me. He made an executive order and didn't a federal judge strike it down? Crisis averted? Perhaps I'm confused.

A crisis to me is like if instead of Paul Ryan we had Arnold Schwarzenegger as Speaker. Pence and Trump are taken out simultaneously and the next person in line would be the Speaker, which would be the Terminator, who isn't a natural born citizen. Of course I imagine they would go down to the next person in line, but that would seem more like a crisis to me.

up
0 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

@Strife Delivery

I think the Postmaster General is in eligible. Then perhaps Surgeon General.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

Strife Delivery.

However, following normal steps in a normal judicial process is not a Constitutional crisis. A President defying a court order might be a Constitutional crisis, but Trump has not done that.

Not long after Tim Russert passed, Arnold said that Russert had promised Arnold, "If you win the if the gubernatorial election, "we" will get the Constitution amended." (Meaning the "natural born citizen" requirement for Presidents) Arnold said, "I won the election, but he never got the Constitution amended." (Despite the quotation marks, these may not be exact words as I am going by memory.)

Given what the Constitution says expressly, I think they would have to, as you said, just go to the next office in line after Speaker, which is Secretary of State. If that were someone like Kissinger or Albright, we'd just have to go to the next one, until we found someone Constitutionally qualified.

There might be a court case, but I don't know that it would be a Constitutional crisis--unless someone tried to inaugurate Arnold, Hank or Mad. I think a crisis would occur if a member of the Executive Branch is flaunting a proper action or mandate of Congress or the Judiciary. We came close to a Constitutional crisis over Obama's red line in Syria, but, after Boehner and 100 members of Congress challenged him over taking military action without a Congressional vote, Obama backed down. http://caucus99percent.com/content/did-obama-draw-red-line-syrian-sand-d...

Or, as Adlai Stevenson might have said, Obama was eyeball to eyeball with Congress and Obama "blinked."

Of course, he ultimately did take military action, but apparently Congress was okay with it. The Constitution requires a vote, not a private deal between the Republican Speaker and the President, but why quibble, as long as they're happy? /sarcasm.

up
0 users have voted.