No DACA deal, Push now for strict immigration restrictions

[StLucieBengal]

(04-25-2018, 03:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If true, then the judge should be immediately stripped of his authority. Ok, that might be a bit harsh, but it's his job to determine if a LAW or exectuive order is constitutional, not if what people SAY about the law is consitutional. If the law, as written, passes constitutoinal merit, it shouldn't matter what ANYONE says about the law, a judge does not (or should not) have the authority to overturn it.

Poland had a massive problem with judicial overreach as well. They started pulling these judges who abuse their power.

[Belsnickel]

(04-25-2018, 02:43 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: The travel ban has been struck down due to its unconstitutional discrimination against a religion. That decision isn’t based on the language of the ban, but on Trump’s own tweets.

I am aware, but I disagree with the ruling that it is unconstitutional. I think it [b]should[b] be unconstitutional, but I don't believe it is based on our current legal framework. "Congress shall make no law..." Well, Congress didn't make this law.

(04-25-2018, 02:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s the courts legislating. This is a problem. Doesn’t matter the current topic, the courts need reined in badly.

Same for executive orders, they need pulled back as well, and force the congress to do its job and write and enact legislation.

DACA was unconstitutional. It’s absurd these judges are protecting this nonsense.

Point one, no, it's not. Just because you disagree with a court's decision doesn't make what they did legislating. You're wrong.

Point two, agreed.

Point three, that is your opinion, and the opinion of some legal scholars. There are just as many scholars saying it wasn't unconstitutional. It could easily be argued that the deferment in deportation falls under the same authority for discretion as Trump's Muslim ban. This road goes both ways.

(04-25-2018, 02:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1. Judges can not legislate. They are over reaching. Not yo mention forcing and unconstitutional executive order.

2. Using trumps tweets is a joke. Executive branch has the authority to close the border to any non citizen.

1. The judges aren't legislating and they aren't overreaching and the EO wasn't necessarily unconstitutional. Federal judges know more than you on that front.

2. The Executive does indeed, but the tweet isn't a joking situation. It shows intent to discriminate based on religion.

(04-25-2018, 04:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: And I'm saying they shouldn't factor into the decision if a law is constitutional or not. If there's nothing wrong with the wording or the perceived effects of the law, then a judge should not be able to overturn it.

It absolutely should be a factor. If the intent behind the policy is to be discriminatory in a way that is illegal, even if that isn't in the text, then that should be taken into consideration when looking at the law. But the intent will often have an impact on the real and perceived effects of the law.

[Belsnickel]

(04-25-2018, 04:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Poland had a massive problem with judicial overreach as well. They started pulling these judges who abuse their power.

The role of the judicial branch is to protect the minority. It is to ensure that those lacking a voice in the government can continue on without their rights being trampled on by those with power. When there is a unified government, whether that be on the left or the right, those who side with the ones in power will always have problems with the judiciary because it is their role to make sure the other two branches cannot run rampant. Without the judiciary to act in this way, tyranny can rule the day. When the judiciary is sycophantic to the other two branches or is removed, then democracy will fall.

It is the third, co-equal branch of our government. That is the way it was set up and the way it is intended to act.

[StLucieBengal]

I am not replying to that whole post. Too much on my screen.


We need to remove several Judges. The power they have is just way too large, this was never the intention of the founders.

And before any leftist chimes in about bias, I would say the same if they attempted anything. Except strict. Adherence to the. Constitution.

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2018, 04:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: And I'm saying they shouldn't factor into the decision if a law is constitutional or not. If there's nothing wrong with the wording or the perceived effects of the law, then a judge should not be able to overturn it.

The effects of the law clearly discriminates against Muslims.  The WH tried to argue that that was just a "side effect" and not the "true intent" of the travel ban.  But the Presidents language was pretty clear that it was intended to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion.

"Intent" is  very important when judging the Constitutionality.  For example many states that do not want abortion to be legal try to ban it by overly restrictive regulations.  The Courts have found that regulations that are claimed to be based on legitimate public safety concerns but are actually just attempts to end abortion are not valid

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2018, 04:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am not replying to that whole post.   Too much on my screen.  


We need to remove several Judges.  The power they have is just way too large,  this was never the intention of the founders.  

And before any leftist chimes in about bias, I would say the same if they attempted anything. Except strict. Adherence to the. Constitution.

Changing judges will not change their power.

What you are talking about is completely re-writing the Constitution to limit the power of the Judicial branch.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-25-2018, 04:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Changing judges will not change their power.

What you are talking about is completely re-writing the Constitution to limit the power of the Judicial branch.

If the legislature takes its power back from the executive branch then this fixes itself.

If we are going to still run an executive centralized government then we will need to rewrite the constitution. This is exactly what Woodrow Wilson wanted.

Changing out judges who do nit follow the constitution as written is something that needs considered.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-25-2018, 04:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The role of the judicial branch is to protect the minority. It is to ensure that those lacking a voice in the government can continue on without their rights being trampled on by those with power. When there is a unified government, whether that be on the left or the right, those who side with the ones in power will always have problems with the judiciary because it is their role to make sure the other two branches cannot run rampant. Without the judiciary to act in this way, tyranny can rule the day. When the judiciary is sycophantic to the other two branches or is removed, then democracy will fall.

It is the third, co-equal branch of our government. That is the way it was set up and the way it is intended to act.

We do not currently have 3 equal branches. Which is the problem.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-25-2018, 04:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am aware, but I disagree with the ruling that it is unconstitutional. I think it [b]should[b] be unconstitutional, but I don't believe it is based on our current legal framework. "Congress shall make no law..." Well, Congress didn't make this law.


Point one, no, it's not. Just because you disagree with a court's decision doesn't make what they did legislating. You're wrong.

Point two, agreed.

Point three, that is your opinion, and the opinion of some legal scholars. There are just as many scholars saying it wasn't unconstitutional. It could easily be argued that the deferment in deportation falls under the same authority for discretion as Trump's Muslim ban. This road goes both ways.


1. The judges aren't legislating and they aren't overreaching and the EO wasn't necessarily unconstitutional. Federal judges know more than you on that front.

2. The Executive does indeed, but the tweet isn't a joking situation. It shows intent to discriminate based on religion.


It absolutely should be a factor. If the intent behind the policy is to be discriminatory in a way that is illegal, even if that isn't in the text, then that should be taken into consideration when looking at the law. But the intent will often have an impact on the real and perceived effects of the law.

I'll admit that I am both late to the party and not expert on this matter.  That said, iirc DACA was instituted via executive order, not legislation.  How can rescinding a previous executive order with an executive order be unconstitutional?

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2018, 05:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Changing out judges who do nit follow the constitution as written is something that needs considered.

But who decides if they are following the Constitution or not?  It is a broad general document with very few details.  It has to be interpreted and adapted to new situations that did not even exist 200 years ago.

BTW if you believe in strict interpretation doesn't that mean only militia members have a guaranteed right to bear arms?

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2018, 05:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If the legislature takes its power back from the executive branch then this fixes itself.  

And the Constitution has nothing to do with this problem we have with the current legislature.

Changing the rules won't fix a congress that can't pass a law. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-25-2018, 05:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We do not currently have 3 equal branches. Which is the problem.

Well, you are right in that we don't, but not in the way you believe.

(04-25-2018, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll admit that I am both late to the party and not expert on this matter.  That said, iirc DACA was instituted via executive order, not legislation.  How can rescinding a previous executive order with an executive order be unconstitutional?

Exactly the reason why I don't understand the ruling forcing the reinstatement of DACA. Most of the commentary in that post was about the Muslim ban.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-25-2018, 05:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But who decides if they are following the Constitution or not?  It is a broad general document with very few details.  It has to be interpreted and adapted to new situations that did not even exist 200 years ago.

BTW if you believe in strict interpretation doesn't that mean only militia members have a guaranteed right to bear arms?

No it doesn’t.

Militia is just a group of citizens. So citizens can have guns.

[Belsnickel]

(04-25-2018, 05:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No it doesn’t.

Yes it does. Even Scalia said as much.

(04-25-2018, 05:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Militia is just a group of citizens. So citizens can have guns.

No it isn't. You're missing the "well regulated" part. Just a group of citizens is not well regulated.

Individual right to own firearms is a ten year old interpretation. That was not the interpretation of the 2nd until recently.

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2018, 05:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No it doesn’t.  

So when the 4th amendment talks about protecting your "papers" from unreasonable search and seizure that does not apply to anything written on a computer, correct?