• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program[W:50]

Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

Trump will let them stay.

You Lefties get all worked up over nothing
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

JANFU said:
So break the law. That is what got the Russian investigations going. Not recommended.
Click to expand...

It isn't illegal to ignore an illegal ruling.

Obama ignored a legal ruling and implemented an unconstitutional EO. Should he have been impeached?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

apdst said:
It isn't illegal to ignore an illegal ruling.
Click to expand...
Really.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

ttwtt78640 said:
The problem is that a single judge can make a past president's EO (or, in this case, some part of that EO) into the law of the land. The constitution assigns no such permanent law making power to the POTUS.
Click to expand...

Of course the constitution gives the president the power to issue EOs. Its right there in the very first sentence of Article II
Even if one believes that the POTUS has such power that does not explain why the current POTUS somehow loses that law making power over a matter simply because it was addressed by a past POTUS.
Click to expand...

That is not what this case is about. There is no doubt that a president has the power to rescind an EO issued by a previous president. However, like every power, it has its limits . In this case, the power to revoke EOs cannot be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

sangha said:
Of course the constitution gives the president the power to issue EOs. Its right there in the very first sentence of Article II


That is not what this case is about. There is no doubt that a president has the power to rescind an EO issued by a previous president. However, like every power, it has its limits . In this case, the power to revoke EOs cannot be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily.
Click to expand...

Of course it can...lol
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

Captain Adverse said:
This judge has overstepped his authority.

Nothing in existing immigration law supports this partisan ruling. DACA was established by Executive Order, not by act of Congress. The President has the power to act under current Immigration law to revoke DACA by eliminating the E.O. that allowed it and then directing the appropriate agencies to begin enforcing immigration law.

Once out of that Progressive-Left hole where the decision was rendered (San Francisco, and then the 9th Circuit), I expect see the ruling being overturned.
Click to expand...


Because you're a lawyer who specializes in this area of law?

Because you're a lawyer?

Because you're a first year law student?

Because someone once told you a story about something funny that happened in their first constitutional law class?




Right...

Enough playing expert when you don't have the expertise. It may fly on a debate board because there's no enforcement, but I think we both know if you tried to pull that kind of stunt in court, you'd get laughed out of the room.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

Perotista said:
Semantics. The legislation I talked about is passed legislation. Legislation not passed is either failed legislation or not legislation depending on how one looks at it. For any legislation to have the effect of law, it must be passed by congress and then signed into law by the president. An executive order such as the one issued by President Obama was more or less guidance to how the INS would enforce the laws already on the books. Or not enforce the laws already on the books.

Any president does have the authority to either adhere to past Executive Orders or to rescind them. With passed legislation by congress, any president can't rescind that legislation. Only congress can.
Click to expand...

Flawed again. While the DREAM Act has not been passed by Congress and therefor is not law, the DACA program is based on legislation--the Immigration and Nationalization Act-- that has passed Congress - legislation which delegates a great deal of authority to the president on matters relating to immigration. For example, under Sec 274A(h)(3), noncitizens are eligible to work in the United States if they are “alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” or “authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General.”

You can see it right there in black and white. The law of the land already authorizes the Executive branch -in the person of the AG-- to grant non-citizens the right to work without requiring any further approval from Congress
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2007/09/20/274a.pdf


https://www.uclalawreview.org/defer...-rule-law-basis-executive-action-immigration/
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

JANFU said:
So break the law. That is what got the Russian investigations going. Not recommended.
Click to expand...

Court opinions are not laws. The legislative power rests with congress. The court cant enforce their opinions either. Enforcement power rests with the executive branch. Which is why Hamilton wrote:

[The judicial branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
Click to expand...

Then again he also wrote

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.
Click to expand...

So much for that.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

jonny5 said:
Court opinions are not laws. The legislative power rests with congress. The court cant enforce their opinions either. Enforcement power rests with the executive branch. Which is why Hamilton wrote:



Then again he also wrote



So much for that.
Click to expand...

So ignore the ruling then?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

jonny5 said:
Court opinions are not laws. The legislative power rests with congress. The court cant enforce their opinions either. Enforcement power rests with the executive branch. Which is why Hamilton wrote:
Click to expand...

You don't know how the system of precedent and common law works, do you?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

Mr Person said:
The judge didn't say what Trump said, which is clearly blasphemy and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Actually, the courts don't have the authority to order the president (any president) to enforce an EO.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

ataraxia said:
You don't know how the system of precedent and common law works, do you?
Click to expand...

Do you know how The Constitution works?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

JANFU said:
So ignore the ruling then?
Click to expand...

The ruling is illegal so, yes.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

Mr Person said:
Because you're a lawyer who specializes in this area of law?

Because you're a lawyer?

Because you're a first year law student?

Because someone once told you a story about something funny that happened in their first constitutional law class?




Right...

Enough playing expert when you don't have the expertise. It may fly on a debate board because there's no enforcement, but I think we both know if you tried to pull that kind of stunt in court, you'd get laughed out of the room.
Click to expand...

Because we can read The Constitution and we are smart enough to know what it says.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

ataraxia said:
You don't know how the system of precedent and common law works, do you?
Click to expand...

I know that neither are the supreme law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Again, Hamilton said it well

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

Puritan Pence calling the judge a 'west coast' judge; more GOP dog whistles
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

sangha said:
Your analysis of this decision is highly flawed.

First, the DREAM ACT is legislation. It just hasnt been passed by Congress...yet

Two, there is absolutely no evidence that this decision was politically motivated in any way

Three, while there is no doubt that a president can revoke EOs, there is just as little doubt that this power is not unlimited.

Finally, this case is not about whether or not a president can rescind Obama DACA EO; it is about whether or not Trump did so in a manner consistent with the law.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about the Dream Act. We're talking about DACA. An EO made by a previous President.

And since when can a current sitting President not revoke a past Presidents EO? Can you point to any previous case law that stops a current sitting President from revoking a past Presidents EO?

And I thought that Obama's EO was about prosecutorial discretion? Doesn't Trump have that ability also? Or is that only valid when its your party sitting in the Big Seat?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

apdst said:
There needs to be a fitness review of all federal judges, because some of them (this guy) don't need to be on the bench.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...igration-program-n836336?cid=eml_nbn_20180110
Click to expand...

Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.
Click to expand...
Are you sure Billy wasn't screwing 14 year olds on the Lolita express?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

NIMBY said:
Puritan Pence calling the judge a 'west coast' judge; more GOP dog whistles
Click to expand...

He should've called him a ****ing idiot.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

NIMBY said:
Puritan Pence calling the judge a 'west coast' judge; more GOP dog whistles
Click to expand...




a "dog whistle" for what?


West coast judges, specifically the 9nth circuit is usually overturned. so what do you mean by "dog whistle"?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily revives part of DACA immigration program

Moderator's Warning:
"Billy" is not a part of this thread. Stick to the topic or be banned from the topic. Your choice.

SirGareth said:
Are you sure Billy wasn't screwing 14 year olds on the Lolita express?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom