04-25-2018, 05:12 PM
(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?
