Trump Tweet of the Day, 4 Feb.2017

[Rolfe]

11mDonald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?


Answer- One with Checks and Balances.

 

[777]

Well, this judge is under (my) Ninth Circus, and many think they will scrap this, because if they don't, Kennedy certainly will hear the appeal and it will be ruled in Trump's favor even if it goes that far.

 

[Use of Time]

11mDonald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?


Answer- One with Checks and Balances.

Well done. The emporer doesn't like the way the country works apparently.

 

[InTheLight]

I thought it wasn't a ban, Mr. President, yet that is the word you just used.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The wanna be dictator does not like the checks and balances within our system. That is why it is so important that the supreme court judge he appoints will be a man of integrity who rules by the law and the Constitution and not just his yes man.

We are in great danger at this time in our history.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I thought it wasn't a ban, Mr. President, yet that is the word you just used.
Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

Just changing feet in mouth--- That's cause he's Smart!

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

I thought it wasn't a ban, Mr. President, yet that is the word you just used.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

Just changing feet in mouth--- That's cause he's Smart!

You guys have to be.......


You are looking for any little thing and then like fools you guys all jump in.

Trump said it was not a MUSLIM BAN. Are you guys just trolling us or are you so desperate to hate Trump you will look for anything? Even to the point you lie to yourself to overlook facts? It's not to late to turn it around!

Oh and by the way, they shopped this to so many judges. Some even affirmed Trumps right to do this. They had to find a liberal Judge (I know appointed by Bush blah blah blah) to do it. That said Trump is going to see how this turns out, but a judge at this level has no authority to change federal law or limit the presidents power.

Do you think a federal Judge has the authority to tell the prez to not go to war if he so wishes?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You guys have to be.......


You are looking for any little thing and then like fools you guys all jump in.

Trump said it was not a MUSLIM BAN. Are you guys just trolling us or are you so desperate to hate Trump you will look for anything? Even to the point you lie to yourself to overlook facts? It's not to late to turn it around!

Oh and by the way, they shopped this to so many judges. Some even affirmed Trumps right to do this. They had to find a liberal Judge (I know appointed by Bush blah blah blah) to do it. That said Trump is going to see how this turns out, but a judge at this level has no authority to change federal law or limit the presidents power.

Do you think a federal Judge has the authority to tell the prez to not go to war if he so wishes?

We will see

 

[Crabtownboy]

Trump said it was not a MUSLIM BAN. Are you guys just trolling us or are you so desperate to hate Trump you will look for anything? Even to the point you lie to yourself to overlook facts? It's not to late to turn it around!

And you believe a man who has shown that throughout his life and his campaign that he is a chronic liar. If so I know of a very large bridge nearby that I am willing to sell you. Trump shows no Christ-like qualities in his life.

 

[TCassidy]

That said Trump is going to see how this turns out, but a judge at this level has no authority to change federal law or limit the presidents power.

That is not entirely accurate. Judge Robart is a judge in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington which lacks the ability to declare the OE unconstitutional, but can order a TRO (temporary restraining order) if, in his opinion, the plaintiffs (the states of Washington and Minnesota) were likely to succeed at a later date; people in those states could suffer irreparable harm if the ban continued; and blocking the president's order was in the public interest.

What this does is force the issue into the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the most liberal of the Circuit Courts of Appeals), to be heard by a three judge panel made up of judges from that Court. Even then the en banc Court, made up of 11 or the 29 Judges, can either confirm or reverse the decision of the District Court.

And even then it is not over. It will go to the US Supreme Court and, in view of the present make up of the Supreme Court, the immigration pause will probably be confirmed. (Wrongly, in my opinion - but that is based on my dislike of Executive Orders that violate the Separation of Powers clauses in the United States Constitution, Article 1 Section I which gives Congress "legislative powers herein granted" and Section 9 lists actions that are prohibited for Congress. The clause in Article II, unfortunately, places no limits on the Executive branch, simply stating that, "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.")

So, as of now, the pause has been paused. This may, or may not, result in less stringent vetting of immigrants from the 7 countries known to support or harbor terrorists. However, even though the pause has been paused, INS can still strengthen the vetting process to help insure no terrorists enter the country.

Frankly, in my opinion, there is less danger from refugees fleeing the failed states of their homelands than there is from the home grown variety such as MSA and other domestic groups.

It is going to be a very interesting couple of years until we get this all sorted out.

 

[TCassidy]

That said Trump is going to see how this turns out, but a judge at this level has no authority to change federal law or limit the presidents power.

Correct. As a judge on the District Court of Western Washington he did not have to actually rule on the legality of the executive order. He cannot declare the EO unconstitutional. But he can issue a TRO which is now being appealed to the 9th Circuit Court's three judge panel.

In granting a TRO (temporary restraining order) the judge essentially had to decide that:

1. the plaintiffs (the states of Washington and Minnesota) were likely to succeed at a later date;

2. people in those states could suffer irreparable harm if the ban continued;

3. and blocking the president's order was in the public interest.

As the 9th Circuit is arguably the most liberal of the Circuit Courts, the TRO will probably be sustained and the EO may be declared unconstitutional. And, of course, that decision will then be heard by the en banc Court made up of 11 of the 29 judges which, again, will probably sustain the TRO which will then force the issue into the US Supreme Court. And judging by its present make up SCOTUS will find the EO enforceable. (Wrongly so, in my opinion. I believe EOs that apply to anyone except employees of the Executive Branch are unenforceable due to the Separation of Powers Clause of Article 1 of the US Constitution.)

So, it is going to be a very interesting couple of years as this mess works itself out.

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

I just read Allen Dershowitzr, a bit of a different take on this picture from a liberal. He said trump had the right to ignore this ruling.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/05/judiciary-dershowitz-trump-showed-due-deference/

 

[Lewis]

Regardless of any Temporary Restraining Order, the president has, by authority of the Refugee Act of 1980, the ability to determine the number of refugees brought into the US each year.

So even if Judge James Robart wants to declare parts of Pres Trump's executive order illegal, it is the president who determines the number of refugees who can enter each fiscal year. The rest is just bickering over details.

"2) Except as provided in subsection Ob), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines." - Refugee Act of 1980

 

[TCassidy]

So even if Judge James Robart wants to declare parts of Pres Trump's executive order illegal,

He didn't and he can't.

 

[Lewis]

He didn't and he can't.

Right. He issued a TRO. But the main point is the judge can't restrain pres Trump setting a limit on refugees.

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

Right. He issued a TRO. But the main point is the judge can't restrain pres Trump setting a limit on refugees.

Trump did not have to follow it because other Judges at the same level up held it and we're in other parts of the contry. I have read that from even liberal sites...read the link a few posts up.

 

[Crabtownboy]

"2) Except as provided in subsection Ob), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines." - Refugee Act of 1980

You link is a bad link.

Also you are incorrect on your claim.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act#Admission_of_refugees

The annual admission of refugees is set to a 50,000 cap per fiscal year, but in an emergency situation, the President may change the number for a period of twelve months. The Attorney General is also granted power to admit additional refugees and grant asylum to current aliens, but all admissions must be reported to Congress and be limited to 5,000 people

 

[TCassidy]

The point is that the east coast judge lifted the TRO saying the EO was legal. But President Trump, because he respects the constitution sought redress in court rather than just ignoring the Washington District Court.

 

[Lewis]

You link is a bad link.

Also you are incorrect on your claim.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act#Admission_of_refugees

The annual admission of refugees is set to a 50,000 cap per fiscal year, but in an emergency situation, the President may change the number for a period of twelve months. The Attorney General is also granted power to admit additional refugees and grant asylum to current aliens, but all admissions must be reported to Congress and be limited to 5,000 people

The correct link is here.
Since Pres Obama had raised the cap to 80,000 refugees per year, then 100,000 per year, and finally 110,000 annually, President Trump lowered it back to 50,000 as specified in the Refugee Act.

 

[Lewis]

Trump did not have to follow it because other Judges at the same level up held it and we're in other parts of the contry. I have read that from even liberal sites...read the link a few posts up.

Yes. I was making the point that no judge inferred Trump couldn't bring the total number of refugees down to previous levels, which he has directed. He has that right as stated in the 1980 Refugee Act.

In fiscal year 2015, the United States resettled 69,933 refugees per Obama's directive.

The Obama administration increased that number of refugees to 85,000 in FY 2016.

And he increased the total to 110,000 refugees in FY 2017.