The Trump Administration's War With Reality

Tenshinai wrote:About the Fox interview:
"He has edited the answers. We were answering completely different questions in the interview."

Why am I suddenly reminded of the Babylon 5 episode "The Illusion Of Truth" (S4 Ep08)?

Seriously, if you haven't seen it, look it up. I heard it's actually been used in several media studies courses to show how easy it is to edit and re-purpose answers for nefarious purposes.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
You do realize Trump didn't say any of that? That's you, not Trump. You're making arguments then assigning them back to him after the fact and saying "see, what he said made sense". But he never said it.


(Just setting aside for the moment your claim that *multiple* courts now have just not understood the Constitution like you apparently do)

I gave you my take on what he said. Yours is different, but that's not a surprise.

I don't believe that the Constitution denies Congress the ability to control immigration and only limit who can be made a citizen. That is just ludicrous. I doubt most of the federal courts believe that either.

If this was true, then anyone can enter the US for any reason and the US government cannot do a damn thing about. The entire visa process would be pointless because that is a limit on immigration. So, if the US Legislature has the authority to limit immigration as granted by the Constitution, then Congress can delegate that function as it did in the Refugee Act of 1980 that amended the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 which allowed the President to limit for a period of 12 months the number of refugees allowed into the country.

The travel ban for permanent residents with re-entry permits should have been addressed and as I understand it was addressed but not directly in the language of the EO. That part was indeed over-reach or sloppy. The refugee ban, was not.

PeterZ wrote: The US was predicated on co-equal branches of government offsetting excesses in any one branch. Getting back to that would be a good thing for us.

Ya fucking what? You are literally arguing the opposite in this thread.


I also think you fail, completely, to understand the purpose of the judicial branch.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
You do realize Trump didn't say any of that? That's you, not Trump. You're making arguments then assigning them back to him after the fact and saying "see, what he said made sense". But he never said it.


(Just setting aside for the moment your claim that *multiple* courts now have just not understood the Constitution like you apparently do)

PeterZ wrote:I gave you my take on what he said. Yours is different, but that's not a surprise.

I don't believe that the Constitution denies Congress the ability to control immigration and only limit who can be made a citizen. That is just ludicrous. I doubt most of the federal courts believe that either.

If this was true, then anyone can enter the US for any reason and the US government cannot do a damn thing about. The entire visa process would be pointless because that is a limit on immigration. So, if the US Legislature has the authority to limit immigration as granted by the Constitution, then Congress can delegate that function as it did in the Refugee Act of 1980 that amended the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 which allowed the President to limit for a period of 12 months the number of refugees allowed into the country.

The travel ban for permanent residents with re-entry permits should have been addressed and as I understand it was addressed but not directly in the language of the EO. That part was indeed over-reach or sloppy. The refugee ban, was not.

PeterZ wrote: The US was predicated on co-equal branches of government offsetting excesses in any one branch. Getting back to that would be a good thing for us.

Ya fucking what? You are literally arguing the opposite in this thread.


I also think you fail, completely, to understand the purpose of the judicial branch.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Not fucking anyone at the moment. Also not sure what this vulgar coloquialism means. Should I ask you what you are fucking? Strikes me as rude though.
Co-equal doesn't mean the same responsibilities. Judges don't set immigration policy. That ruling from the Washington judge treads awfully close to setting policy. Do you understand what judges can't do?

Think of it as a WTF type sentiment.
Think: "Dad, I got drunk and crashed your car into the police station and now the senior sergant wants to talk to you"


No, Judges decide if laws et al are actually constitutional, and if the execution of them should be delayed while the courts decides on the constitutionality of them.
That is literally it's function.

Now, you're right to a point. The President specifically has the power to block immugration, but he does have to follow the whole law, and the constitution, in doing so.

He didn't in this case.

Oversimply put, he must follow due process.

He must have a reason, a valid reason. He can't do it on a whim.

When asked for that reason during the case for the stay, the judges got blank looks.

There are other problems of course, the execution of it was abysmal.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Think of it as a WTF type sentiment.
Think: "Dad, I got drunk and crashed your car into the police station and now the senior sergant wants to talk to you"


No, Judges decide if laws et al are actually constitutional, and if the execution of them should be delayed while the courts decides on the constitutionality of them.
That is literally it's function.

Now, you're right to a point. The President specifically has the power to block immugration, but he does have to follow the whole law, and the constitution, in doing so.

He didn't in this case.

Oversimply put, he must follow due process.

He must have a reason, a valid reason. He can't do it on a whim.

When asked for that reason during the case for the stay, the judges got blank looks.

There are other problems of course, the execution of it was abysmal.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

That's the point. Due process assumes those impacted have standing and are within the court's jurisdiction. These are foreign nationals who are not even in the US. When the President acts in accord with his authority to limit immigration, of course those denied entry cannot engage in activities within the us. That's the point. Due process would be better applied to individuals requesting an exemption.

That way the courts are not setting policy but ruling on exceptions and refining how the law is to be applied.

Strangely PeterZ, SCOTUS disagreed, it must be 10 or 12 years ago now.

You know SCOTUS, that body that decides what is constitutional and/or legal.

Simply put, Habeus Corpus aplies to anybody who is being detained by the US, no matter where they are or what their nationality.
If Habeus Corpus applies, then so does the 5th.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Hang on, you just tried to claim it doesn't aply then immediately claimed it did?

Please, pick one. You can't say both.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Strangely PeterZ, SCOTUS disagreed, it must be 10 or 12 years ago now.

You know SCOTUS, that body that decides what is constitutional and/or legal.

Simply put, Habeus Corpus aplies to anybody who is being detained by the US, no matter where they are or what their nationality.
If Habeus Corpus applies, then so does the 5th.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Sorry but the people are NOT being detained. They are simply not being allowed entry. That is in essence what immigration means, allowing entry. So, if the President's not allowing entry into the US is defined as detaining foreign nationals and Habeas Corpus applies, then foreign nationals, all foreign nationals, have a right to enter the US. This means the federal government must seek to individually remove them from the US after they freely enter the US at their whim.

This interpretation asserts Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress ONLY the power to decide which foreign national with free access to enter and leave the US can become a citizen. Furthermore, it makes the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and the United States Refugee Act of 1980 unconstitutional for simply asserting that there is a limit on the number of refugees that may enter the US. In addition all the aliens jumping the border and those that have yet to jump the border but for some reason cannot have standing to sue the government for restricting their access. That access being protected by the 5th Amendment as prohibiting unlawful detention.

In your words...ya fucking what?

Annachie wrote:Hang on, you just tried to claim it doesn't aply then immediately claimed it did?

Please, pick one. You can't say both.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Do try to be more clear. What are you referring to?

PeterZ wrote:That's the point. Due process assumes those impacted have standing and are within the court's jurisdiction.

The President who issued an order is within the court's jurisdiction.

The TSA and ICE agents who were implementing that order are within the court's jurisdiction.

The green card holders who were being denied entry without any stated grounds for suddenly overturning their legal immigration status are within the court's jurisdiction.

The US citizens whose family members were suddenly being denied the right to come and see them are within the court's jurisdiction.

Do I need to continue?

These are foreign nationals who are not even in the US. When the President acts in accord with his authority to limit immigration,

There are limits on how he may choose to do that. He grossly exceeded them in multiple ways. (Arbitrarily revoking already granted legal immigration status from an entire class of people with no due process, wording the order such that it imposed a de facto religious test for expedited entry... )