BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JVoV
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
Yes of course you are right.... giving children aid and a path to citizenship is damn right against our Constitution and Christian values.
Actually, you’re, again, arguing against yourself. It is constitutionally illigal. Your previous argument was that Trump wasn’t being constitutional and was therefore a monster. Nobody, including me, said DACA was a bad thing. We said it was a constitutional usurpation of power by a president who himself said it was unconstitutional more than once. What Trump said was, you want it, make it constitutional. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that especially since Trump said he’d direct staff to ignore it until congress acted. How does any of that argue for your first postition?
This is still not quite accurate. The Constitution itself makes no mention of immigration or which branch has the power to determine immigration policies. In fact, citizenship wasn't defined Constitutionally until the 14th Amendment, after the Civil War. So let that argument go.
So since the power is undefined Constitutionally, it can easily be assumed to be shared between the executive and legislative branches, as neither branch has complete authority over foreign relations.
In fact, the only real argument with Trump's first travel ban is that it violates the First Amendment, restricting travel from Muslim countries, thus targeting people of a specific religion. Had Trump himself called it something other than a ban on Muslims in his campaign rhetoric, I'm not sure there would be an argument that could be made at all.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president
quote:
United States. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936) and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952)—are touchstones.
In the first, the court held that President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted within his constitutional authority when he brought charges against the Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation for selling arms to Paraguay and Bolivia in violation of federal law. Executive branch attorneys often cite Justice George Sutherland’s expansive interpretation of the president’s foreign affairs powers in that case. The president is “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” he wrote on behalf of the court. “He, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing conditions which prevail in foreign countries and especially is this true in time of war,” he wrote. emphasis mine.
Worth repeating.
The president is “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” he wrote on behalf of the court. “He, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing conditions which prevail in foreign countries and especially is this true in time of war,”
Of course, that was 1936, but it still sets a legal precedent for a travel ban from specific countries. It could also very well establish a legal precedent for Obama's immigration orders. Also, the President does have the Constitutional authority to pardon anyone, so an argument could very well be made that that's exactly what Obama was doing, though adding stipulations and requirements for those pardons.
But Congress hasn't passed an immigration bill since 2005. Lazy bastards, all of them.
The president does not have the power to right law.
I have great respect for McCain as a person, but not as a leader.
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine
People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|
RE: An American dialogue - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread