Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So he signs an executive order and it directs policy .


And people set about implementing ( stopping people from 7 countries entering US ) or trying to implement ( replace Obamacare with something else ) and that carries on until a legal challenge is succesful ?


Can Congress intervene /block executive orders apart from approving a judicial review ?


I'm very confused and ignorant .

So 2 judges ( one in Brooklyn and one in Virginia ) have put a ?temporary stop to travellers from the 7 affected countries stuck in US airports from being deported .


So will stranded travellers in states where judges haven't taken this action be in danger of being deported ?

And those travellers who can no longer be deported but still cant enter US ....? Stranded at airport I guess until further developments .


I suppose they could change travel plans and fly out of US to somewhere else . If they had finances and somewhere else to go ????

You'll probably have seen the case mentioned on the BBC website of the young woman studying veterinary medicine at Glasgow. She has an Iranian passport and went on holiday to Costa Rica with her boyfriend. Now they're not allowed to board the plane home because the flight goes via the US. Buying new tickets via Madrid will cost ?2600 which they can ill afford.


As I understand it the judges are reacting to the individual situations that this executive order have created - not the 'constitutionality' of that order.

ah ,yes that makes sense jenny .


I wonder how the constitutional aspect could be challenged - congress agreeing to a judicial review ? Which would mean Republicans breaking ranks ? Which I guess it's a little early for ?

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ah ,yes that makes sense jenny .

>

> I wonder how the constitutional aspect could be

> challenged - congress agreeing to a judicial

> review ? Which would mean Republicans breaking

> ranks ? Which I guess it's a little early for ?


The US constitution is going to be very important over the next few months to keep Trump in line, but AFAIK the constitution offers no protection to non-US people, unless they are on US soil. So the judge can step in to deal with people being held at US airports, but cannot make any judgement on the wider policy.

There was this attempt, after a House of Representatives vote, to sue Obama in 2014 over Obamacare. I don't know its outcome but it seems to have been regarded as an oddball action: "Legal scholars have questioned whether any member of Congress can prove injury by the president and therefore prevail in court." https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/politics/house-votes-along-party-lines-to-sue-obama.html. The conventional Congressional remedy would seem to be counter-legislation. WikiP:ExecutiveOrder:Legal conflicts.


Current lawsuits are summarised in Wikipedia at Darweesh_v._Trump. The main article for the shemozzle seems to be Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

That's very helpful ianr. So the case being currently brought by the American Civil Liberties Union is based on the fact that the executive order is in breach of a number of pieces of existing legislation including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. I'm no legal expert - but given what Trump has said the ACLU case appears unarguably strong, making the executive order illegal.


I wonder if the legal process will have to 'play out' or if Trump will be persuaded to climb down before that happens.

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There was this attempt, after a House of Representatives vote, to sue Obama in 2014 over

> Obamacare. I don't know its outcome but it seems to have been regarded as an oddball action: "Legal

> scholars have questioned whether any member of Congress can prove injury by the president and

> therefore prevail in court."


A curious thing to say. They weren't suing on the basis of injury. They were suing on the basis he exceeded the executive powers. Incidentally, they won.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28554842


... which also has nice summary of the executive orders.

Thanks for the links ianr - as said ,v helpful .


and I'm glad to read this


"Prime Minister Theresa May has told her foreign secretary and home secretary to contact their US counterparts about a travel ban imposed by President Trump.

Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd will make representations about the order barring refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim majority countries for 90 days.

Earlier Mr Johnson tweeted it was "divisive and wrong" to stigmatise people on the basis of nationality."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38789821

> A curious thing to say. They weren't suing on the basis of injury. They were suing

> on the basis he exceeded the executive powers. Incidentally, they won.


In Judge Collyer's own words in her 12/5/16 judgment: "The House?s injury depends on the Constitution and not on the U.S. Code." The notion of justiciable injury seems to be deemed relevant. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1967-73


The executive appeal against that judgment seems to be still pending. The latest I've found, http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/12/29/rapid-developments-in-house-v-burwell/, gets us to the beginning of this month.


There's an overview at wikip:United_States_House_of_Representatives_v._Burwell

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for the links ianr - as said ,v helpful .

>

> and I'm glad to read this

>

> "Prime Minister Theresa May has told her foreign

> secretary and home secretary to contact their US

> counterparts about a travel ban imposed by

> President Trump.

> Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd will make

> representations about the order barring refugees

> and visa holders from seven Muslim majority

> countries for 90 days.

> Earlier Mr Johnson tweeted it was "divisive and

> wrong" to stigmatise people on the basis of

> nationality."

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38789821


Good for her. Strangely, this is not what she said when asked for her own opinion in Turkey. But I guess that wisdom comes late in the day for us all.

It basically seems to apply to everyone with certain nationalities or traveling from certain countries BUT after clarification was sought by our Foreign Secretary it does not appear to include British citizens with dual nationality or traveling from those countries on Trump's list (so a case of "we're okay").


Utter hateful nonsense.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mo Farah and family are very welcome back in the

> UK. We would give them a nice homecoming,


As he moved away for tax reasons, I don't think we should welcome him at all.

"As he moved away for tax reasons, I don't think we should welcome him at all."


I don't think that's right. He's been effectively living in the US for some time, and (as I understand) spends more than half the year there, and so is liable to US tax on all his income, wherever it arises. An easy way to avoid double taxation (at least on income arising in the UK) is to be non-resident in the UK, but that's just recognising the reality i.e. he is resident in the US.

I've just read this https://www.justsecurity.org/36960/stock-weekends-district-court-orders-immigration-eo/ which details the legal challenges to date .


Whatever the status/constitutionality of this EO it does seem to have been administered in a way which left the officials on the ground confused as to how to implement the new policy . I wonder if Trump wanted maximum chaos to publicise his actions or if he simply didn't understand the need to consult and iron out the details before he tried to bring this in ?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Every year they ask for more and every year it is an exhausting process pushing back on that for local residents and councillors. What annoys me is that at the post event consultation/ feedback this year, I specifically asked them if the rumours around applying for two weekends next year were true. They told me no. So that was a lie. Anyway, we go again. 
    • Double In New or great condition  Or super comfortable air bed Any1 pls
    • Rant ahead: You're not one of them but unfortunately, there's a substrate of posters here that do very little except moan and come up with weird conspiracy theories. They're immediately highly critical of just about any change, and their initial assumption is that everyone else is a total fucking contemptible idiot. For example: don't you think that the people who run the libraries will have considered the impact of timing of reconstruction on library users? (In fact, we know they have - because they've made arrangements at other libraries to attempt to mitigate the disruption). After all, these are the people that spend their whole working week thinking about libraries and dealing with library users (and the kids especially). You don't go into the library game for the chicks and fame - so it's fair to assume that librarians are committed to public service and public access to libraries, including by kids. Likewise the built environment people (engineers, architects, construction managers, project managers, construction contractors, subcontractors or whoever is on this job) are told to minimise disruption on every job they do. The thing that occurs to us as amateurs within 30 seconds of us seeing something is probably not something a full time professional hasn't thought about! Southwark Council, the NHS, TfL, Dulwich Estate, Thames Water, Openreach - they're not SPECTRE factories filled with malevolent chaosmongers trying to persecute anyone. They're mostly filled with people who understand their job and try to do their best with what they've been given - just like all of us. Nobody is perfect or immune from challenge, and that's fair enough, but why not at least start from the assumption that there's a good reason why things have been done the way they have? Any normal person would be pleased that their busy, pretty, lively local library is getting refurbished, and will have more space and facilities for kids and teens, and will be more efficient to run and warmer in winter. But no, EDT_Forumite_752 had kids who did an exam 20 years ago, and this makes them an expert on library refurbishment who can see it's all just stuff and nonsense for the green agenda and why can't it all be put off... 😡😡😡
    • I completely misread the previous post, sorry. For some reason I thought the mini cooper was also a police vehicle, DUH.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...