It would look better on paper if they just profiled people traveling from Muslim countries instead of specifically Muslim Americans.
At any rate, this isn't going to help; apart from being borderline Orwellian and violating the Fourth Amendment, say they find evidence on a person suggesting radicalization: what can they do? They can't arrest the person because they haven't done anything-- it only seems like they might do something. If they keep tabs on them, they can't really arrest them until they actually do something, and it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to intercept them before they cause damage. There's a small window through which they could interept the suspect-- if they actually mean to commit an act of terrorism-- if, and only if they actually communicate their intent to the people they answer to ahead of time.
It gets better, Tim Kennedy (former Special Forces Operator and a MMA fighter) and Glenn Beck of all people are ponying up $100k of their own money as prize money for the fight. Glenn even is trying to put the fight on Pay-per-view. Tim Marchman Vs. Tim Kennedy in the octagon would be something I would pay to see.
@Sandor
But that creates a lot of problems in and of itself.
- Not even a billion dollars will be enough – the GOP themselves just announced intent to move legislation providing $15 billion for the wall, and that's just counting the construction itself, not other things like Trump's massive planned increase in border security and wall maintenance employees. Even under your proposed system, Americans would still be footing the vast majority of the bill. I'd hardly call that counting pennies, unless you're referring to the amount of money we'll have left after the wall goes up.
- Furthermore, this system partially depends on the illegal immigrants Trump swore he would deport. You mentioned "money… being sent home by Mexican nationals working, legal or illegally." If Trump actually starts deporting illegals en masse, he'll lose out on a good bit of the money he would have been using to build the wall, and if he doesn't, he'll be taking a PR hit for failing to deliver on his promise.
- But, most importantly, this is something you're proposing. Trump may or may not have even thought of taxing wire transfers. If this is what Trump is planning to do, why hasn't he explained it? Why just call it a "complicated form"?
@Ted Cruz situation
Cruz is already moving to seize the meme vote. Can Trump continue to be a contender in 2020 even when his shitposter voting base is split?
Mexico president cancels Trump summit as wall taunt deepens spat
The plot thickens.
My best behaviour wrote:
This is a general pattern in history.
There's a thesis, antithesis, and then a synthesis
In this case, radical leftism is the thesis, radical right wing-ism?, is the antithesis and soon there will be a synthesis. In which ideally, the bits of truth in both ideals will coalesce into something better. Things will get better, but not after a lot of pendulum swinging.
Whew them Dielectics.
I say, there is a thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and rejection.
You can reject radical leftism. You can reject radical right. You can also reject the synthesis of the two.
For example.
Radical left wing economics, radical right wing social policy, synthesis > Fascism, Communism (as expressed by Communist nations)
I choose to reject left wing economics, and right wing social conservatism.
We'd be in an arms race with Russia if Hillary was in, especially over the accusations of them tampering with the elections. In fact id say we'd be closer to doomsday over giving Hillary supreme control over the CIA and giving them orders to strike back at Russia in retaliation.
Black Graphic T wrote:
We'd be in an arms race with Russia if Hillary was in, especially over the accusations of them tampering with the elections. In fact id say we'd be closer to doomsday over giving Hillary supreme control over the CIA and giving them orders to strike back at Russia in retaliation.
to be fair, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Putting pressure on Russia's already hard-pressed economy by forcing them into another arms race would do what it did with USSR…though, i guess, the drawback would be later on when it all collapses again, and we get a slew of Russian armaments floating through the world's rogue organizations and terrorist states…
Honestly, if the US wants to deal with Russia in a non-military way, and send a clear message to Putin, it can easily do it. Here's how:
1) Audit the property that has been bought up by Russian elite in the US, by the FBI and the IRS.
2) Every pregnant Russian woman that flies into the US is immediately denied entry.
You want to take down an oligarch? Take down the small circle of elite that prop him. How do you that? Deny them safe-haven in the US.
And there IS a precedence. Here in LA we've had a similar problem with Chinese wives of the elite coming to the US on Birth Tourism. Sometimes paying thousands and thousands of dollars for the privelage.
I've always argued, if you really want to know what's going on inside any country: just look at what t he wealthy elite are doing.
Chinese and Russians are buying up US property, and coming here to birth children. It is an insurance policy for when shit goes down – they can always just come to the US since their children are US Citizens, and their strong investments in real estate would give them special wink wink and nod nod about getting green cards and citizenship.
Somebody needs to get different staff on that clock already. They're clearly part of the hysterical crowd.
Now, what's this about a "purge" in the State Department? WaPo was the first I heard of it, I don't anyone as shrill as they.
Black Graphic T wrote:
We'd be in an arms race with Russia if Hillary was in, especially over the accusations of them tampering with the elections. In fact id say we'd be closer to doomsday over giving Hillary supreme control over the CIA and giving them orders to strike back at Russia in retaliation.
Highly doubt that any accusations would be thrown to Russia rigging the election if Hillary had won since it was largely Radical Left-wing making the accusations.
I doubt Hillary would actually be doing anything in retaliation towards Russia besides Tariffs which were already in place.
Colonial2.1 wrote:
Somebody needs to get different staff on that clock already. They're clearly part of the hysterical crowd.
Now, what's this about a "purge" in the State Department? WaPo was the first I heard of it, I don't anyone as shrill as they.
A bunch of senior staff at the state department were either "fired" or "asked to resign" or "Resigned" depending upon who you ask and what article you read.
I knew this video existed for a while, but I only clicked on it today; it's a pretty interesting alternate take on the necessity of the wall.
[But that creates a lot of problems in and of itself.]
To start, I realized I made a mistake last night carrying 1s and 0s. 1% of 570 Billion is 5.7 Billion, which is about one third of the current top estimate for wall construction. Clearly, even at that amount those figures would not be enough.
I picked a 1% tax as an example. Using the $570,000,000,000 figure, a 6% tax would yield $34,000,000,000. This tax rate is about the average state sales tax, and therefore should be considered reasonable. And it produces a yield more than double the current high estimates of a border wall's cost.
The reference to pennies was about Americans paying taxes on remittances to Mexico. I'll grant its not really pennies, but it would represent a minuscule proportion of the total, and not enough to claim America was "paying for the wall."
With greater security enforcement, this source of money would decrease over time. However, an argument can be made that once there are less illegal immigrants in the US, funds currently being spent on providing them services could be transferred to border security, offsetting the loss of remittance taxes.
I want to make two points about this contention. First, I will admit that this would fall under the category of the US "paying" for the wall. However, the counter argument to this would be the US is already spending this money and it represents no additional burden to the US taxpayer.
Secondly, the issue of cost-benefit of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, is a contentious and politically biased argument. It is not my intention to get into this discussion here, as it's very complex, off topic, and wading through the various politically-motivated sources is not appealing. For anyone interested, I'll link the Wikipedia overview of the issue, as it offers various perspectives and more importantly links to the major immigration studies groups.
Finally, Trump has raised the remittance taxes as a possible funding source.
My intention is not to predict what will happen, but rather to point out there are methods to border wall funding which involve Mexico providing such funding. Today the big story was the possibility of a 20% tax on Mexican imports to fund the wall.
We also need to remember Trump promised to renegotiate NAFTA. The border wall, NAFTA, immigration enforcement, labor and trade issues, as well as other concerns, are all connected to one another and what we are seeing and hearing are the opening positions in what will likely be a series of negotiations on different topics.
[I doubt Hillary would actually be doing anything in retaliation towards Russia besides Tariffs which were already in place.]
As, SoS Clinton supported a militant and activist foreign policy. It was under her service that the Arab Spring melted down the Middle East and laid the groundwork for the Syrian Civil War. Her State Department was deeply enmeshed with the same neo-con figures who not only pushed for the Iraq War but is strongly anti-Russian. And she herself showed a disturbing level of immaturity when it came to the death of Muammar Ghaddafi.
So this is why I breath a sigh a relief over the fact that the candidate who "stressed her commitment to stand with the government and people of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, and discussed ways to help Ukraine strengthen and defend itself" didn't win the election.
Don't get me wrong. I don't approve of what is going on in Ukraine. But the person who laughs about causing the death of a foreign leader and who took a "let it catch fire" approach to the mid-east is not someone I want confronting Vladimir Putin.
"Fearing a loss of millions of dollars for defying immigration authorities, Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez on Thursday ordered county jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests -- effectively gutting the county’s position as a “sanctuary” for immigrants in the country illegally.
Gimenez cited an executive order signed Wednesday by President Donald Trump that threatened to cut federal grants for any counties or cities that don’t cooperate fully with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Since 2013, Miami-Dade has refused to indefinitely detain inmates who are in the country illegally and wanted by ICE -- not based on principle, but because the federal government doesn’t fully reimburse the county for the expense."
“These positions are political appointments, and require the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm them in these roles. They are not career appointments but of limited term,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “Of the officers whose resignations were accepted, some will continue in the Foreign Service in other positions, and others will retire by choice or because they have exceeded the time limits of their grade in service.”
4 People doesn't feel nearly as much as "entire senior management"
I really hope it's true Clinton's planning a talk show to pivot to a 2020 campaign, just so I can laugh throughout the 2020 election. Sadly, given only the fringe news sites are reporting it and the info's from Edward Klein (one of the big anti-Clinton writers), hope is just about all I can do.
Colonial2.1 said:
…is this the beginning of the end for the whole Democratic Party?
Doubt it. At best (from a liberal point of view), there'll be an internal party realignment like what happened after the New Deal Coalition broke apart over Vietnam. At worst, the old guard will fight off an attempt to realign. I really don't think they'll pull a Liberal Party and schism between conservative and liberal factions. I just don't think progressives would be willing to sign off the next decade to the GOP while the left pulls itself back together--especially since there's no Labour Party equivalent to cushion the fall.
Astatine, Resident Hijab Enthusiast said:
I’d like to understand the positions the folks have here on the matter
One the one hand, I like net neutrality since it ensures ISPs don't do any bullshit, on the other, the doomsaying (the internet will become like cable TV packages!) seems over the top--especially since if it did get to that point, you'd likely see the internet companies start throwing money into becoming ISPs themselves (remember Google Fiber?), thus forming additional competition.
Also, with the AT&T Time Warner thing (which Trump may or may not let happen), it seems like there might a shift from "we're going to charge extra for this stuff" to "we won't charge you for this because we own it."
Verbose said:
But I’m hesitating from jumping to the conclusion that the US just did something very…very…“something.”
Wut.
Snickerway said:
…that fact that corrupt politicians took action to seize power…
I'm not well versed on the South Dakota thing since I don't live there and it doesn't affect me, but there was apparent concern that it violated the first amendment and would interfere with the regular duties of state representatives. The state Attorney General warned that it might be challenged in court and given how McDonnell v United States turned out, I'm not surprised about the warning.
A state judge issued an injunction barring implementation of the referendum pending the outcome of the case. Here's a copy of the lawsuit that lays out some of the arguments they make against it. The South Dakota Senate has delayed a vote on the repeal bill until Feburary. (Thank you based Ballotpedia)
As for state legislatures screwing over voter referendums, they do it all the time. Michigan's pulled it after we repealed the emergency financial manager law (by placing it in an appropriations bill that can't be voted on). Evidently, voters weren't too fussed about it since most of them got reelected this past year and there's been nay a peep about amending Article 2, Section 9 of the Michigan constitution to remove the appropriations ban.
MorningSTAR – The Dawn said:
Boarder Agents are trying to get the social media information of Muslim Americans returning from abroad
Thoughts?
SCOTUS requires a court order for most cell phone searches, so I'd expect this to be challenged in court and for them to win in that case.
Now, providing your Facebook/Twitter username so they can look and see if you posted anything stupid in public ("Getting ready to get through the border. Got the good stuff. Hope they don't find it. #cocaine #bumper") may be an entirely different thing and I'd be interested to see where the courts would lie on it.
Basilius said:
I doubt Hillary would actually be doing anything in retaliation towards Russia…
Given Libya, I'm pretty sure Syria would have turned into a proxy war--it already has the shades of one of those Central American ones (we fund the rebels, they fund the government).
Last edited Jan 27, 2017 at 12:05AM EST
Astatine, Resident Hijab Enthusiast wrote:
Somebody help me get a raw transcript of what she was saying-- all I could hear was "FOUR MORE YEARS OF TRUMP!"
Really, though, the sycophancy is palpable. I don't even think the people that stood there could take her seriously. I don't even think she took herself seriously-- it was as if she was just giving them what she thought they wanted to hear.
See, I think the Dems are floundering right now, but I don't think that they're in so much disarray that they would double down on techique proven to further ostracize the majority race in the country, and they certainly wouldn't elect someone who has effectively both implicitly and explicitly communicated that she has no leadership skills.
She outright admitted that she's out of touch with the people-- thus why she has to ask minorities about their grievances and why she needs to act as a voice for them, when she should have already known at this point if she wanted to prove she was listening: she has nary a solid goal of her own for the party outside of restoring race relations within the party that, given the strong minority support they had in even the last election, isn't proving so much to be an issue compared to their flagrant rigging practices, and moreso in favor of a low energy candidate, that ended up blasting their credibility while forcing out their organization's top brass.
Speaking of which, she nailed her own coffin when she decided to go on even when the lady at the podium was about to call it a wrap for her and then decided to go on to insult the people that they as a party presumably chose to lead without any balance of compliment or even qualification of insult, after having effectively said that she has no idea what she's doing, herself. This was the time where she could mention how they sullied their image by rigging their own primary and unleveling the playing field for Clinton in the generals (Brazile giving debate questions to Clinton ahead of time comes to mind). But she just goes and effectively says "the chair doesn't know what they're doing"-- even the lady at the podium at 3:45 is like "um, excuse you".
They couldn't possibly elect someone who has zero subtlety when telling white people to pipe down because of the color of their skin and sounds like the kind of person who's only ever been around black people when she asked them to do her "plumbing". They'd much sooner appoint an actual capable black person, with the field of logic she wants to employ.
But you know what? It'd be fun to see the DNC go full stupid and actually elect her.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure she won't get elected as the DNC chair. The only two candidates that matter are Keith Ellison and Tom Perez. They're both pretty popular and have experience. Ellison has endorsements from Bernie Sanders and Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer, though he's gotten flak for his former involvement in the Nation of Islam as well as his anti-Israel views. From what I've heard, though, he's actually good at generating voter turnout in his district. I'd be fine with either Ellison or Perez becoming the DNC chair (though I lean towards Ellison, since that'll at least get the Sanders progressives to shut up--my opinion of Sanders has soured, and honestly, I feel like they're dividing the Democrats at a time when party unity is REALLY important).
xTSGx wrote:
I really hope it's true Clinton's planning a talk show to pivot to a 2020 campaign, just so I can laugh throughout the 2020 election. Sadly, given only the fringe news sites are reporting it and the info's from Edward Klein (one of the big anti-Clinton writers), hope is just about all I can do.
Colonial2.1 said:
…is this the beginning of the end for the whole Democratic Party?
Doubt it. At best (from a liberal point of view), there'll be an internal party realignment like what happened after the New Deal Coalition broke apart over Vietnam. At worst, the old guard will fight off an attempt to realign. I really don't think they'll pull a Liberal Party and schism between conservative and liberal factions. I just don't think progressives would be willing to sign off the next decade to the GOP while the left pulls itself back together--especially since there's no Labour Party equivalent to cushion the fall.
Astatine, Resident Hijab Enthusiast said:
I’d like to understand the positions the folks have here on the matter
One the one hand, I like net neutrality since it ensures ISPs don't do any bullshit, on the other, the doomsaying (the internet will become like cable TV packages!) seems over the top--especially since if it did get to that point, you'd likely see the internet companies start throwing money into becoming ISPs themselves (remember Google Fiber?), thus forming additional competition.
Also, with the AT&T Time Warner thing (which Trump may or may not let happen), it seems like there might a shift from "we're going to charge extra for this stuff" to "we won't charge you for this because we own it."
Verbose said:
But I’m hesitating from jumping to the conclusion that the US just did something very…very…“something.”
Wut.
Snickerway said:
…that fact that corrupt politicians took action to seize power…
I'm not well versed on the South Dakota thing since I don't live there and it doesn't affect me, but there was apparent concern that it violated the first amendment and would interfere with the regular duties of state representatives. The state Attorney General warned that it might be challenged in court and given how McDonnell v United States turned out, I'm not surprised about the warning.
A state judge issued an injunction barring implementation of the referendum pending the outcome of the case. Here's a copy of the lawsuit that lays out some of the arguments they make against it. The South Dakota Senate has delayed a vote on the repeal bill until Feburary. (Thank you based Ballotpedia)
As for state legislatures screwing over voter referendums, they do it all the time. Michigan's pulled it after we repealed the emergency financial manager law (by placing it in an appropriations bill that can't be voted on). Evidently, voters weren't too fussed about it since most of them got reelected this past year and there's been nay a peep about amending Article 2, Section 9 of the Michigan constitution to remove the appropriations ban.
MorningSTAR – The Dawn said:
Boarder Agents are trying to get the social media information of Muslim Americans returning from abroad
Thoughts?
SCOTUS requires a court order for most cell phone searches, so I'd expect this to be challenged in court and for them to win in that case.
Now, providing your Facebook/Twitter username so they can look and see if you posted anything stupid in public ("Getting ready to get through the border. Got the good stuff. Hope they don't find it. #cocaine #bumper") may be an entirely different thing and I'd be interested to see where the courts would lie on it.
Basilius said:
I doubt Hillary would actually be doing anything in retaliation towards Russia…
Given Libya, I'm pretty sure Syria would have turned into a proxy war--it already has the shades of one of those Central American ones (we fund the rebels, they fund the government).
The anti-corruption bill's only claim is that it violates the constitution from "the word of a judge".
However with a bit of research the judge didn't say it was unconstitutional and he threw the case against it out.
They are spreading lies and misinformation about the bill in order to convince people that removing it is a good idea.
Astatine, Resident Hijab Enthusiast wrote:
I knew this video existed for a while, but I only clicked on it today; it's a pretty interesting alternate take on the necessity of the wall.
Rageaholic is often over the top and a bit vulgar, but his is quite spot on in his subject of discussion and entertaining all the while. .
Immigration isn't the mass culprit to unemployment as much as automation and robotics is.
The reality is, manufacturing exports, and manufacturing in general has been consistently going up in the US.
in 1961 there were 16 Million employees in manufacturing. The same number was in 2003. Low-skilled manufacturing was replaced with high skilled one.
From 1983 to 2002, low skilled manufacturing employment dropped 9%, while high skilled manufacturing went up 32%.
it's an ever changing reality of our economy, but neither Trump or anyone else wants to confront this reality.
Immigration is an impact, but not nearly as much as technology.
Trump is now preparing to sign a directive to halt refugee flows into the USA
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-expected-to-sign-directive-halting-refugee-10888855.php
He's going all out.
Changing climate, changing geography, what were once distant neighbors, suddenly become next door frienemies.
Looking at the situation from the arctic point of view, and suddenly what really divides the US from Russia, is an arctic ocean – an ocean that is becoming increasingly absent of ice, at certain points of the year, opening up to a new conflict under the aurora borealis.
Sauce? Latest article I can find says "Republican legislators questioned the constitutionality of the measure, and took the law to court. It has since been placed on hold there. Senator Maher says this leaves the state without any campaign finance laws."
"Reforms proposed by Republicans include placing limits on lawsuits that have been used to maintain protections for some species and to force a decision on others. Republicans also want to adopt a cap on how many species can be protected and to give states a greater say in the process."
They're not trying to invalidate the ESA. They're trying to make changes to specific aspects of the law
Are all those proposals good? Probably not. Would I support a blanket repeal? Absolutely not. The species "cap" sounds pretty stupid IMO.
But the reality is some environmental laws need to be reviewed and tweaked. There's no reason the Canada Goose, which is so numerous that it is a pest in most American communities, needs the full protection of the Migratory Bird Act. At the same time, we don't need to a total repeal of the MBA which will turn the Canada Goose into the 21st Century's Passenger Pigeon.
All that is accomplished by hyperbole such as "GOP seeks to invalidate Endangered Species Act" is to prevent needed scrutiny of and opposition to such proposals from having any credibility.
I'm fine with the intent of suspending refugee migration to the States (it's better than trying to profile them by religion), but is the preference for Christian refugees in said Muslim countries necessary? If they really wanted to get in, they'd just say they were.
What else is interesting is that Trump says talks about how it was easier for a Muslim from Syria to get into the States than Christians from Syria (not necessarily mentioning refugees), but then the writer only mentions the stats for the religion of refugees.
"But the numbers tell a different story: The United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.
The BBC says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group.
So how is it that one-half of 1 percent of the Syrian refugees we’ve admitted are Christian, or 56, instead of about 1,000 out of 10,801--or far more, given that they certainly meet the legal definition?
The definition: someone who “is located outside of the United States; is of special humanitarian concern to the United States; demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Somewhere between a half million and a million Syrian Christians have fled Syria, and the United States has accepted 56. Why?
“This is de facto discrimination and a gross injustice,” Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, told Fox News. Fox notes another theory: The United States takes refugee referrals from the U.N. refugee camps in Jordan, and there are no Christians there."
Let's also bear in mind Trump's plan to create "Safe Zones" in the Middle East for the vast majority of refugees. This is not FDR turning away the St Louis in 1939 and sending it back to Germany. There is a plan to assist war refugees, but it doesn't involve allowing large numbers of them into the US.
"Legal experts are arguing that Congress can use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overrule and dismantle former President Obama’s regulations going back to 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Until now GOP congressional leaders had believed the CRA could only be used against new regulations – those finalized in the past 60 legislative days, Kimberly Strassel wrote in a column for the Journal.
Strassel, a member of the Journal's editorial board, noted that Todd Gaziano, a senior fellow in constitutional law at the Pacific Legal Foundation, touched off the debate over the CRA. Gaziano is the former counsel to then-Republican Rep. David McIntosh, who sponsored the CRA.
"No one knows the law better," Strassel wrote.
She said Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration.
"The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president," she said.
The CRA requires federal agencies to submit reports with regulation changes.
"There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports," Gaziano told Strassel. "And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn't."
Any of those without reports can be tossed out, he said.
"If they haven't reported it to Congress, it can now be challenged," said Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation."
Last edited Jan 28, 2017 at 12:09AM EST
I was confused between the CFR link you gave and Pew Research citation the NYT article gave, and then I realized: while Trump was talking about Christians in Syria, the writer deflected by talking about refugees overall.
"Legal experts are arguing that Congress can use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overrule and dismantle former President Obama’s regulations going back to 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Until now GOP congressional leaders had believed the CRA could only be used against new regulations – those finalized in the past 60 legislative days, Kimberly Strassel wrote in a column for the Journal.
Strassel, a member of the Journal's editorial board, noted that Todd Gaziano, a senior fellow in constitutional law at the Pacific Legal Foundation, touched off the debate over the CRA. Gaziano is the former counsel to then-Republican Rep. David McIntosh, who sponsored the CRA.
"No one knows the law better," Strassel wrote.
She said Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration.
"The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president," she said.
The CRA requires federal agencies to submit reports with regulation changes.
"There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports," Gaziano told Strassel. "And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn't."
Any of those without reports can be tossed out, he said.
"If they haven't reported it to Congress, it can now be challenged," said Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation."
I just want to get this straight. So basically if the Obama administration didn't send in the right paperwork, their actions and the laws they signed, and the executive orders the paperwork concerned are not only null and void, but become illegal to enact under any circumstances?
Last edited Jan 28, 2017 at 01:14AM EST
After Shock wrote:
I just want to get this straight. So basically if the Obama administration didn't send in the right paperwork, their actions and the laws they signed, and the executive orders the paperwork concerned are not only null and void, but become illegal to enact under any circumstances?
My understanding is this:
-Any changes to regulations issued by the Executive Branch need to be reported to Congress.
-The Obama Administration did not regularly/consistently do this throughout either of Obama's terms.
-Because they were unreported, Congress may have the right to reverse or throw out any regulation changes not reported to it, regardless of whether the standard 60-day window has passed.
The regulation changes were/are not illegal, but because they went unreported Congress may have the right to discard them. It sounds like an issue that will be settled in court, but Congress appears to have the law in its favor. If it wins many of the Obama-era regulations may be subject to repeal.
No laws would be affected, as the regulations are the result of rulings coming out of the various agencies under the Executive Branch (such as the EPA or IRS).
For example, let's say the EPA issued regulation changes in 2013 regarding how Environmental Impact Statements are conducted on Federal lands. If the changes were not submitted to Congress, Congress may have the right to get rid of them.
Colonel Sandor wrote:
My understanding is this:
-Any changes to regulations issued by the Executive Branch need to be reported to Congress.
-The Obama Administration did not regularly/consistently do this throughout either of Obama's terms.
-Because they were unreported, Congress may have the right to reverse or throw out any regulation changes not reported to it, regardless of whether the standard 60-day window has passed.
The regulation changes were/are not illegal, but because they went unreported Congress may have the right to discard them. It sounds like an issue that will be settled in court, but Congress appears to have the law in its favor. If it wins many of the Obama-era regulations may be subject to repeal.
No laws would be affected, as the regulations are the result of rulings coming out of the various agencies under the Executive Branch (such as the EPA or IRS).
For example, let's say the EPA issued regulation changes in 2013 regarding how Environmental Impact Statements are conducted on Federal lands. If the changes were not submitted to Congress, Congress may have the right to get rid of them.
Interesting, now I have two questions.
Was Gay Marriage legalized by law or by executive order?
If it was by executive order, was that order reported to congress?
After Shock wrote:
Interesting, now I have two questions.
Was Gay Marriage legalized by law or by executive order?
If it was by executive order, was that order reported to congress?
It was legalized by a Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which held (5 votes to 4) that limiting marriage to only opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Congress was at no point consulted – the decision came down from the judicial branch.
So the only way to re-ban gay marriage is to either amend the constitution or have another Court decision overrule the old one. Both are very difficult to do. An executive order banning gay marriage would not have any legal weight whatsoever, nor would a federal law.
Platus wrote:
It was legalized by a Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which held (5 votes to 4) that limiting marriage to only opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Congress was at no point consulted – the decision came down from the judicial branch.
So the only way to re-ban gay marriage is to either amend the constitution or have another Court decision overrule the old one. Both are very difficult to do. An executive order banning gay marriage would not have any legal weight whatsoever, nor would a federal law.
I see, so one of the major successful pushes for LGBT rights is safe.
Now I have another question, do we know what are the executive orders that might be overruled because the administration didn't report them to Congress?
(I wouldn't quite call gay marriage "safe", considering the hair margin the decision was decided with, the arguments on both sides, and the vacancies in the SCOTUS as of now. And on the other hand, 37 states before the ruling already declared their bans unconstitutional, effectively making it legal in their states; it was only a matter of time before it was legal in all 50.
At any rate, it'd be much safer enshrined as a law or a constitutional amendment-- or just not legislated by anyone at all-- and that's if you wanted to make it a federal decision. But, I already went "stark-raving" mad on this earlier in the thread.)
Last edited Jan 28, 2017 at 12:29PM EST
I think an important question to ask is, why the hell didn't the Obama administration file any reports with Congress for all of the executive orders they made?
Astatine, Resident Hijab Enthusiast wrote:
(I wouldn't quite call gay marriage "safe", considering the hair margin the decision was decided with, the arguments on both sides, and the vacancies in the SCOTUS as of now. And on the other hand, 37 states before the ruling already declared their bans unconstitutional, effectively making it legal in their states; it was only a matter of time before it was legal in all 50.
At any rate, it'd be much safer enshrined as a law or a constitutional amendment-- or just not legislated by anyone at all-- and that's if you wanted to make it a federal decision. But, I already went "stark-raving" mad on this earlier in the thread.)
I believe to overturn the "gay marriage ruling" would require someone to have a lawsuit saying that legalizing gay marriage has negatively impacted their life, that lawsuit would have to make it up to the supreme court, then they would have to over rule it.
Just adding to what's been happening with the immigration thing.
Thoughts?
Last edited Jan 28, 2017 at 09:16PM EST
Basilius wrote:
I believe to overturn the "gay marriage ruling" would require someone to have a lawsuit saying that legalizing gay marriage has negatively impacted their life, that lawsuit would have to make it up to the supreme court, then they would have to over rule it.
Or Congress would have to pass an amendment.
I've heard this case could overturn it, or at least heavily neuter it. My understanding atm is that the Obergefell ruling decided that same-sex couples deserve to be treated the same under the law as opposite-sex couples, but this case alleges that Obergefell only covers marriage. If this is the case, then it seems that Obergefell could be cut down to… well, very little. "You can be legally recognized as married, but there's no requirement that we do anything other than say you're married." Of course, as mentioned before, a lot of states had legalized same-sex marriage presumably to the level of the same as opposite-sex marriages, so it wouldn't affect the majority of states. It would be a major hit though, undoubtedly.
Part of the EO was blocked, and the detainees are still being detained pending a full resolution. The ruling as of now is just "they can't be sent back".
(I don't think I caught that this was supposed to be effective immediately. Geez…)
This probably shouldn't have been enacted immediately, and it's easier (and more constitutional) to suspend refugee migration until they can review the vetting process than it is to lump immigrants with them. I understand the fear of overseas radicalization, but not only do we seldom have such cases come to fruitition, it's also possible in this day and age to be radicalized online. If Trump wants to suspend refugee admission, that's alright (I said as much before, but I didn't give any solid thoughts on his immigrant ban at the time-- my bad).
But it would have been much better to suspend the reception of refugee requests and then suspend the process after all those cases trickled out, so they could review the vetting system.
It's not been blocked.
The judge ruled foreign nationals holding visas from the affected countries who had already arrived or were in transit when the order was signed may legally enter the US. These were the people who came in before the doors were "locked." As of now no one else can obtain a visa or legally enter the US from the designated countries.
D) B and C are the basis for which nations Trump included in the EO. It's an Obama Administration list.
That is some of the legal context in which things are happening.
People are not being indefinitely detained. When Trump issued the EO, it placed people in the process of traveling to the US in legal limbo. That was a mistake, as it should have contained a provision for such individuals. The ruling has resolved their status. Further court challenges will be required if the EO is to be overturned.
Edit: I made a mistake. Apparently the ruling does not release affected individuals. Rather, it states these individuals cannot be deported. So, they are still in legal limbo but as of now they cannot be sent back.
Last edited Jan 28, 2017 at 10:33PM EST
MorningSTAR – The Dawn said:
Was Gay Marriage legalized by law or by executive order?
Gay marriage was legalized in two rulings by the Supreme Court, both 5-4. United States v Windsor overturned DOMA and applied to the federal government's ban while Obergefell v. Hodges overturned Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky's bans and, effectively, overturns all state bans.
In order for gay marriage to be banned either SCOTUS must twist some pretzels and overturn it's previous rulings or a constitutional amendment is passed. Only two constitutional amendments (11th and 14th) have ever been passed specifically to overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court.
Astatine, Resident Hijab Enthusiast said:
…and the vacancies in the SCOTUS as of now…
Kennedy voted with the liberal justices in the gay marriage cases, so unless he or one of the liberal justices dies, the rulings will stand. All that's being replaced right now is Scalia's (arguably the most conservative justice) vacant seat. The court will still have the slim 5-4 conservative edge it's had for over a decade.
Soul28 said:
Thoughts?
It'll be a fun legal clusterfuck that'll snake it's way through the courts over the next year. Personally, I'd rather Congress pass a definitive law. It's much easier to interept a lengthy law than a three paragraph executive order.
Rivers said:
I’ve heard this case could overturn it, or at least heavily neuter it.
Unless Ginsberg dies soon (not entirely out of the question given she's 83 and has had both colon and pancreatic cancer), I doubt they'll neuter it. If it gets to SCOTUS, Kennedy will go with the liberal justices again and uphold it.
"President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.
Administration officials described the bans as historic in scope. But it was not immediately clear how either one would be enforced. "
Featured
