Other Sports1 min ago
The Most Powerful Man In The West And
He can't even get a travel ban in place.
He may be having a war of words with North Korea that could escalate into something much more dangerous but this so called leader of the free world uses twitface like a school kid having a spat.
It would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
http://
He may be having a war of words with North Korea that could escalate into something much more dangerous but this so called leader of the free world uses twitface like a school kid having a spat.
It would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mickey, millions in the US support him and I suspect millions around the world see what he is doing and get why he does it rather than name calling from the left.
I am not necessarily a fan nor do I agree with him on everything but I do admire someone standing up to the Establishment that are shafting most of us good and proper.
I am not necessarily a fan nor do I agree with him on everything but I do admire someone standing up to the Establishment that are shafting most of us good and proper.
I'm not entirely sure what PP's going on about either.
But Naomi, I mean that it's no defence of Trump to say "he's only trying to protect his country" if he's doing so in a way that's deemed unconstitutional -- although we await the Supreme Court judgement on the case, still, and maybe they will disagree.
And besides, it's not even clear that this is what's motivating Trump to try and implement this ban. It was pointed out at the time of the first ban that (a) only 72 people from the first seven countries in the ban had been implicated in terrorist activity, (b) 44 of those were investigated but never convicted, (c) only 3 were convicted of acts committed on US soil, and (d) no US citizen died as a result (the charges mainly being linked to financing of terrorist-related activity or the arrests being made elsewhere). Oh, and (e) this despite around a million people coming from those countries, most of whom have never done anything remotely terrorist-related.
So if it was "trying to protect his country" then it was poorly-targeted *and* poorly-implemented. And unconstitutional. And on all three grounds it's perfectly reasonable to criticise the president, and to question his motives for bringing in the policy in the first place.
http://
But Naomi, I mean that it's no defence of Trump to say "he's only trying to protect his country" if he's doing so in a way that's deemed unconstitutional -- although we await the Supreme Court judgement on the case, still, and maybe they will disagree.
And besides, it's not even clear that this is what's motivating Trump to try and implement this ban. It was pointed out at the time of the first ban that (a) only 72 people from the first seven countries in the ban had been implicated in terrorist activity, (b) 44 of those were investigated but never convicted, (c) only 3 were convicted of acts committed on US soil, and (d) no US citizen died as a result (the charges mainly being linked to financing of terrorist-related activity or the arrests being made elsewhere). Oh, and (e) this despite around a million people coming from those countries, most of whom have never done anything remotely terrorist-related.
So if it was "trying to protect his country" then it was poorly-targeted *and* poorly-implemented. And unconstitutional. And on all three grounds it's perfectly reasonable to criticise the president, and to question his motives for bringing in the policy in the first place.
http://
I don't think it's sensible at all to dismiss people who admire Trump. That same attitude was one of the factors responsible for his successful campaign, after all. Understanding it, or trying to, isn't the same as agreeing with it of course -- but either way, Mikey, I wish you weren't so dismissive about his supporters.
Trump is a contradition of likability. Or is that believability?
He does seem to care for his country and want the best for it but he seems to have an overinflated idea of his power.
Yes the president of the USA is generally regarded as the most powerful man in the west and the free world . Yada Yada yada.
But look at how much he has to do and how many hoops he has to jump through! it now seems, more so with him, that the USA president is at times pretty impotent.
By using social media and the language in the way he does he looses more of the importance he should have because the whole world can see he acts like a spoilt school kid hitting out at anyone who disagrees with him.
I believe he above all other US presidents has lowered the status of his position and therefore his country.
He does seem to care for his country and want the best for it but he seems to have an overinflated idea of his power.
Yes the president of the USA is generally regarded as the most powerful man in the west and the free world . Yada Yada yada.
But look at how much he has to do and how many hoops he has to jump through! it now seems, more so with him, that the USA president is at times pretty impotent.
By using social media and the language in the way he does he looses more of the importance he should have because the whole world can see he acts like a spoilt school kid hitting out at anyone who disagrees with him.
I believe he above all other US presidents has lowered the status of his position and therefore his country.
How is failing to introduce a travel ban, protecting the country ?
It is not as if we haven't been down this route before, we have. The President does something illegal, and the Courts overturn it. And the President just keeps on doing it, and the Courts keep on overturning it.
All very disfunctional and wasting lots of time when there is real and more important work to be done.
It is not as if we haven't been down this route before, we have. The President does something illegal, and the Courts overturn it. And the President just keeps on doing it, and the Courts keep on overturning it.
All very disfunctional and wasting lots of time when there is real and more important work to be done.
Jim....see Gromits post above.
I can understand people being fooled by Trump, in the run up to the Election. But in a two-Party State, like America, if you are a natural Republican voter, and Trump is your only choice, than most of the Republican votes are going to g to him. What other choice did people have ? Either to abstain, and millions of Americans did just that, or vote Democrat ?
Hilary proved to be ultimately unelectable, even though she polled more votes, so Trump was elected by default.
But now, nearly a year after his Election, its much more difficult to see why Trump still hangs onto so much support. His administration has been chaotic, to say the least, and he hasn't followed through with most of his pre-Election promises.
Add to that, his inability to get his own Party to back him on really important issues, like health care reform, and his constant defeats in the Courts, and its no wonder that I question peoples ability to judge.
I can understand people being fooled by Trump, in the run up to the Election. But in a two-Party State, like America, if you are a natural Republican voter, and Trump is your only choice, than most of the Republican votes are going to g to him. What other choice did people have ? Either to abstain, and millions of Americans did just that, or vote Democrat ?
Hilary proved to be ultimately unelectable, even though she polled more votes, so Trump was elected by default.
But now, nearly a year after his Election, its much more difficult to see why Trump still hangs onto so much support. His administration has been chaotic, to say the least, and he hasn't followed through with most of his pre-Election promises.
Add to that, his inability to get his own Party to back him on really important issues, like health care reform, and his constant defeats in the Courts, and its no wonder that I question peoples ability to judge.
The anti-Trumpers are losing their collective marbles.
Couple of nights ago CNN, and I swear I'm not making this up, reported that the Russians had manipulated Pokemon Go to make Trump win the election.
I can understand the corrupt people in the media, intelligence agencies, Democrat and Republican parties making all this crap up, the net is tightening and a lot of them are facing jail time.
Why on earth do 'normal' people in this country buy into the constant stream of nonsense?
Couple of nights ago CNN, and I swear I'm not making this up, reported that the Russians had manipulated Pokemon Go to make Trump win the election.
I can understand the corrupt people in the media, intelligence agencies, Democrat and Republican parties making all this crap up, the net is tightening and a lot of them are facing jail time.
Why on earth do 'normal' people in this country buy into the constant stream of nonsense?
We've got this:
"There's also the Constitution to consider."
and this:
"! you can criticise him for trying to protect thro unlawful means. "
I wonder what is unconstitutional and illegal about the travel ban. Please advise me. I'm aware of various legal niceties to do with some citizens' rights being denied because of a particular presidential order and think the original judicial vetoes used a number of them. (The first Hawaiian one was "this citizen won't be able to have his mother-in-law for Christmas" - or some such, as I recall).
I don't think any of the original stays cited the statute which defines Presidential discretion over right of entry to the USA. It wascited in the original Bannon(RIP)-drafted presidential order, but wasn't touched on by any of the activist judges who decided that the order was unconstitutional/illegal.
It's here:
https:/
Note the phrases "any alien or any class of alien" and "for such period as he shall deem necessary".
"There's also the Constitution to consider."
and this:
"! you can criticise him for trying to protect thro unlawful means. "
I wonder what is unconstitutional and illegal about the travel ban. Please advise me. I'm aware of various legal niceties to do with some citizens' rights being denied because of a particular presidential order and think the original judicial vetoes used a number of them. (The first Hawaiian one was "this citizen won't be able to have his mother-in-law for Christmas" - or some such, as I recall).
I don't think any of the original stays cited the statute which defines Presidential discretion over right of entry to the USA. It wascited in the original Bannon(RIP)-drafted presidential order, but wasn't touched on by any of the activist judges who decided that the order was unconstitutional/illegal.
It's here:
https:/
Note the phrases "any alien or any class of alien" and "for such period as he shall deem necessary".
Sorry - garbled the link:
https:/
The relevant section is:
"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
https:/
The relevant section is:
"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
//I wonder what is unconstitutional and illegal about the travel ban. Please advise me..//
a genuine pleasure - the ruling is here
http://
the judges ipsissima verba
(cue - "wossee on abart?" " wot dat den"
"I dunno wossee on abart eever" - Hawaii woznit bombed to hades during da war - is it still vair den?)
anyway this post is on the latest fed judge's opinion on the the third Trump travel ban
and yes boys and girls it is accepted the President has to obey the law
a genuine pleasure - the ruling is here
http://
the judges ipsissima verba
(cue - "wossee on abart?" " wot dat den"
"I dunno wossee on abart eever" - Hawaii woznit bombed to hades during da war - is it still vair den?)
anyway this post is on the latest fed judge's opinion on the the third Trump travel ban
and yes boys and girls it is accepted the President has to obey the law
I've been away in the afternoon rather than silent. Occasionally I remember that I have a life outside AB :P
I think, v-e, the issue throughout has actually centred mainly on States' rights rather than individuals' rights, although I may have misremembered. In any case, all the relevant judgements this year are below:
https:/
https:/
And the most recent one is here:
http://
I think, v-e, the issue throughout has actually centred mainly on States' rights rather than individuals' rights, although I may have misremembered. In any case, all the relevant judgements this year are below:
https:/
https:/
And the most recent one is here:
http://
Can you summarize the judgment for me, please, Peter.
I got to the part about Dr. Elshikh alleging "injuries to himself, his family and members of his his mosque", "perceived favour" and the weaselly "tacit and illegitimatequote[(is this word being used in its strictly legal sense? VE)] motivation underlying the presidential order".
Does it reference the statute defining the President's discretion?
Under the ruling you might think there is no foreign national who is a member of Dr. Elshikh's family who can be denied entry to the US without violation of the Constitution. Would that be a fair inference?
I got to the part about Dr. Elshikh alleging "injuries to himself, his family and members of his his mosque", "perceived favour" and the weaselly "tacit and illegitimatequote[(is this word being used in its strictly legal sense? VE)] motivation underlying the presidential order".
Does it reference the statute defining the President's discretion?
Under the ruling you might think there is no foreign national who is a member of Dr. Elshikh's family who can be denied entry to the US without violation of the Constitution. Would that be a fair inference?
Yes, I understand that, Jim. From the Watson ruling citing 8 USC 1152:
" Nondiscrimination
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27) , 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
Does the ruling explain why the President's discretion (9 USC 1182) cannot in this instance overrule the don-discrimination provision?
" Nondiscrimination
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27) , 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
Does the ruling explain why the President's discretion (9 USC 1182) cannot in this instance overrule the don-discrimination provision?
There is quite a bit we dont have Vet
First the states have a duty - parens patriae - ( and you are allowed to say - "what-ens what-tree-eye?") to protect the rights of various citizens of whom Dr ElSheikh is one, in a federal court
so the Fed goes into that
The judge says that the rights that were infringed by the previous goes or attempts are still infringed
He then looks at the personal rights of Dr Elsheikh - who has rights under Art 1 of the constitution - and he says they are also infringed
Trumps emails and interviews about which everyone has said 'Oh boy that'll get him into trouble', have .. got him into trouble. Specifically where he says "I cant carl it a muslim ban but it is" - so the judge looks at context and not at text [ and a zillion lawyers stand up and insist "o no no you must look at the text and not the context"]
and so the judge says - more of the same - strike it out
oh, he also looks at the TRO ( temp restraining order) and says he thinks there is a good chance of it being made permanent.
There is not much in it for us I have to say - Parens patriae I dont think I have ever seen discussed in English Law. We dont have an embedded written constitution. We dont have judicial agonising over locus standi - whether the plaintiff is in the right court or should be pleading the action somewhere.
else.
The Gina Miller case - which is kinda related
https:/
whether a minister can trigger article 50 or not
( kinda like executive privilege but it is called royal prerogative - is argued from completely different premisses - 1610 case of proclamations means that both sides agree that a minister cannot alter statute law) - whereas the american case - they kicked off arguing whether the president's orders were justiciable. In Nixons time it was established they were.
longish post - bit technical sorry about that
First the states have a duty - parens patriae - ( and you are allowed to say - "what-ens what-tree-eye?") to protect the rights of various citizens of whom Dr ElSheikh is one, in a federal court
so the Fed goes into that
The judge says that the rights that were infringed by the previous goes or attempts are still infringed
He then looks at the personal rights of Dr Elsheikh - who has rights under Art 1 of the constitution - and he says they are also infringed
Trumps emails and interviews about which everyone has said 'Oh boy that'll get him into trouble', have .. got him into trouble. Specifically where he says "I cant carl it a muslim ban but it is" - so the judge looks at context and not at text [ and a zillion lawyers stand up and insist "o no no you must look at the text and not the context"]
and so the judge says - more of the same - strike it out
oh, he also looks at the TRO ( temp restraining order) and says he thinks there is a good chance of it being made permanent.
There is not much in it for us I have to say - Parens patriae I dont think I have ever seen discussed in English Law. We dont have an embedded written constitution. We dont have judicial agonising over locus standi - whether the plaintiff is in the right court or should be pleading the action somewhere.
else.
The Gina Miller case - which is kinda related
https:/
whether a minister can trigger article 50 or not
( kinda like executive privilege but it is called royal prerogative - is argued from completely different premisses - 1610 case of proclamations means that both sides agree that a minister cannot alter statute law) - whereas the american case - they kicked off arguing whether the president's orders were justiciable. In Nixons time it was established they were.
longish post - bit technical sorry about that
I think in UK law a PM's campaign speeches (or tweets) wouldn't be admissible in any sense in a legal judgement. In US law it seems somewhat looser, which in one sense surprises me. It's clear morally that Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..." sets the context in which his later Executive Orders could be considered, ie the fact that it targeted specifically Muslim countries at first was hardly a surprise after he'd said that. But legally? I think it is probably set out in one of the judgements, either by Watson or Robart or possibly by one of the Appeals Circuit rulings, why it was admissible, but there are a few things about US law that confuse me and I suppose this (campaign speeches being legally important) surprises me a little.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.