No DACA deal, Push now for strict immigration restrictions

[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.