Question For Those That Voted For Trump

[Guest Schwab711]

 

First of all a little civility would be nice. Humor works too. Notice I did not attack you or call your argument specious.

 

Second, Are you arguing that a president has authority to issue EO's, which is no argument at all, because of course they do. I think you are arguing that Trump has the authority to issue this specific EO.  Here, there are eminent legal scholars who disagree with you. So you can say it's gibberish, but let us know when you get your appointment to Harvard Law Review, much less a professorship somewhere.

 

Obviously you don't know the law, constitutional or otherwise.  Intent has great meaning in law in general and in specific constitutional law, both in theory and application, Note this is one bulwark of certain conservatives' argument about how to interpret the constitution in modern day, i.e what did the framers intend.  Thus, intent is not limited to criminal cases. Courts have justly looked to statements of lawmakers when judging constitutionality of a law.  I have not per se seen any specific cases with regard to EO's but the principle holds.

 

There also may be statutory issues, given the 1965 Immigration Act as amended.

 

Furthermore, that more than one district court stayed parts of the EO, clearly show that the arguments are not "gibberish". Now it may turn out that eventually this EO survives, I don't care to handicap that, but it is not nearly as simple as you would make it out to be.

 

Do you have legal training? 

 

I took a Con Law class many years ago and your application of original intent is ridiculously far off.  Original intent refers to the intent (or meaning) of the law when drafted.  It has nothing to do with the intent of the person doing the act today.  Trump's reasoning is not relevant.  There is law (Sec. 1182) that gives the President the authority to do what he did.  Sure the Courts may determine that the law is in conflict with the Immigration Act of 1965, or may not.  But it would be improper for them to try to ascertain why the President did what he did.

 

@tim

 

well put.  as a matter of const law, congress has "plenary" power over immigration.  that means beyond judicial review.

 

congress has delegated to president its power over immigration in a series of statutes.  president has unfettered authority to act, though congress could rein him in.  what potus did here, suspend visas/green cards from certain countries, has been done by many presidents, including obama.

 

now, potus can even revoke green cards and existing visas, though that was not what he did here...though there was confusion initially.  the EO order subjected existing holders to an interview process, which initially was poorly handled.  reason why?  because these 7 countries do not have systems that permit vetting.  there are many other muslim majority countries which do.

 

potus can issue an order tomorrow that completely stops the granting of all new green cards and visas.  now under the chinese exclusion cases, potus could do so for religious or racial grounds.  i dont think that part of the chinese exclusion cases still persists though.

 

Severability doctrine. Netnet is also correct in what they wrote.

 

But for this specific case I agree with you and tim. I also got my law degree at a holiday inn express so my agreement is worth that.

[RichardGibbons]

 

The current US actions evidence a great many parallels to the early days of Hitler, Franco, and Apartheid

 

The left's hysterical overreaction has set the bar so low that all Trump needs to win over another term is not be Hitler. 

 

He isn't bothered by the the Hitler/facist comparisons, and probably hopes they continue.

 

#MasterStroke

 

You're starting to understand.  Keep going, and you'll soon be miles ahead of the all the "experts" in the media, and DC politicians.

 

LOL, on this thread, onyx1 reminds me of John Scalzi's discussion of Trump today:

 

This is also why I am mildly exasperated at the idea floating about, that the fumbling bullshit nonsense these numpties are up to represents 11-dimensional super-chess political moves. Folks, no. Really, just, no. If they were 11-dimensional super-chess masters, they wouldn’t have had a negative polling rating eight days into their administration; they’d instead have made us delighted to waltz down the path to a comfortable and complacent fascism. But they didn’t, because they can’t, because they’re not that smart. A White House that spends four days litigating the size of an inauguration crowd is not a clutch of masterminds. Masterminds wouldn’t have given a shit about how many people showed up on the goddamn National Mall.

 

But don’t you see, Scalzi? All of this is distraction from their true mastermind evil plans! Folks, you realize that needing these jackasses to be masterminds is a form of vanity, yes? We couldn’t have possibly chosen to be ruled by custard-headed bigots who can’t find their asses with GPS and an Eagle Scout! They must be smarter than that! Well, no, they’re really not, and yes, we really did. There are lots of ways to explain that — I favor the whole “the GOP’s decades-long plan to undermine its voters’ dedication to truth and public institutions really paid off” angle of things personally — without having to haul out the 11-dimensional chess board.

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

LOL, on this thread, onyx1 reminds me of John Scalzi's discussion of Trump today:

 

This is also why I am mildly exasperated at the idea floating about, that the fumbling bullshit nonsense these numpties are up to represents 11-dimensional super-chess political moves. Folks, no. Really, just, no. If they were 11-dimensional super-chess masters, they wouldn’t have had a negative polling rating eight days into their administration; they’d instead have made us delighted to waltz down the path to a comfortable and complacent fascism. But they didn’t, because they can’t, because they’re not that smart. A White House that spends four days litigating the size of an inauguration crowd is not a clutch of masterminds. Masterminds wouldn’t have given a shit about how many people showed up on the goddamn National Mall.

 

But don’t you see, Scalzi? All of this is distraction from their true mastermind evil plans! Folks, you realize that needing these jackasses to be masterminds is a form of vanity, yes? We couldn’t have possibly chosen to be ruled by custard-headed bigots who can’t find their asses with GPS and an Eagle Scout! They must be smarter than that! Well, no, they’re really not, and yes, we really did. There are lots of ways to explain that — I favor the whole “the GOP’s decades-long plan to undermine its voters’ dedication to truth and public institutions really paid off” angle of things personally — without having to haul out the 11-dimensional chess board.

 

Exactly. Thus far, we have not seen any brilliant results from the imposed 11-D chess moves. Refugee ban on these 7 nations (where Trump Hotels also happens to do no business) is unlikely to make America safer. America has been attacked by terrorists from other nations (mostly Saudi Arabia) where Trump does business.

 

All Trump fans can lay claim to is his election victory: an election where both candidates had historically high disapproval ratings. If Trump is a genius for winning the election by such a slim margin and losing the popular vote, Obama must be super-genius level as he won two terms with even greater (electoral and popular vote) margins. Oh wait, but Trump's 304 electoral votes and losing the popular vote was a "landslide" and his inauguration "had the most number of people ever. period".

 

You really can fool some of the people all of the time.

 

If Trump is a master at anything, it's fooling his followers. What else would you expect from a casino operator???

[Parsad]

yates is a jill stein wannabe.  15 minutes of fame. 

 

the DOJ office of legal counsel had already passed on legality of EO.  if you know constitutional law re immigration, you know that trump had legal authority to issue this EO. yates violated her oath of office in deciding not to enforce a legal order.  she wanted to commit career suicide.  maybe will get a gig on CNN now

 

but more importantly, why are we debating this on an investment board?

 

Assume you are correct on all points...even though hundreds of thousands of protesters disagree with you, including a number of Republican party members, supporters and well-known Conservatives. 

 

You are telling me that this President's conduct so far, his compulsive tweeting, choice of words when characterising those that disagree with him, and the ridiculously inane and incompetent way he has executed this travel ban, doesn't worry you in the slightest? 

 

Top brass at the borders, Department of Homeland Security, foreign embassies, travel bureaus, you name it...had no idea what this ban meant and how to enforce it.  Citizens, green card holders, children, etc were held at borders or denied entry.  This was a major f**k up.  Sears executes their retail business with more competency!  Cheers!

 

George Bush, Obama and Hillary's State Department bomb and kill thousands of Muslims with unprecedented drone strikes, destroy entire countries, slaughter people in Iraq, create starvation in Yemen, and create this entire refugee crisis to begin with, and yet I don't recall any mass protests about that . . . 

 

But now your main worry is about how a travel ban was implemented.

 

Do you not see that perhaps your moral compass is a little askew?

 

There were mass protests against the Iraq war.

 

Secondly, how do you know Parsad wasn't bothered by all those wars and bombs?

 

Correct!  I was one of the few people who disagreed with going into Iraq...feel free to go back and look at old posts on the Motley Fool BRK Board.  Almost no one wanted to say anything about it then.  I had no problem with Afghanistan after 9/11, but I said going to Iraq was going to be a mistake.  I've had alot of issues with U.S. policy in the Middle East over the last 15 years, and Trump isn't about to make it better...it's just that he's also finally making it worse at home as well!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

The vindictiveness that a thread like this foments is alarming. Some posters here appear to post not for the sake of debate but just to get back at another poster or "the other side".

 

Does any of this make you feel good? Does any of this change anyone's position one iota?

 

Reminds me more of the type of shitstorms in reddit and Facebook. I suggest that Parsad lock this thread.

 

Agreed!  I think everyone has vented enough for whatever it's worth. 

 

Feel free to vent until midnight PST.  I will lock it thereafter.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

We should start a thread on religion.

 

Been there, done that!  Ended up with Buddha kicking Jesus in the nuts, while Allah sat on a bean bag chair and laughed his ass off.  The Pope was busy on the internet looking up "Dakota Fanning", Krishana was cooking a steak, and  five rabbis were kvetching in the kitchen about how they didn't have any good mustard for their corn beef and rye sandwiches! 

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

My thanks to Sanjeev for continuing to allow discussion whenever people clamor to "lock the thread". Free speech isn't a right on a private forum, but I appreciate it being allowed, even if it gets "messy" at times.

 

I have no problem with these threads...people want to talk about it, and as long as most people are civil, I think they serve a purpose.  At some point though, I do lock them and we are nearly at that point.  Have at it till midnight!  Cheers!

[rb]

We should start a thread on religion.

 

Been there, done that!  Ended up with Buddha kicking Jesus in the nuts, while Allah sat on a bean bag chair and laughed his ass off.  The Pope was busy on the internet looking up "Dakota Fanning", Krishana was cooking a steak, and  five rabbis were kvetching in the kitchen about how they didn't have any good mustard for their corn beef and rye sandwiches! 

 

Cheers!

Now that sound like a fun thread to read. I wish I was around for that.

[Guest cherzeca]

"As investors, students of Buffett, ethical behaviour and in terms of intellectual honesty...this is completely contradictory to what he told supporters and non-supporters alike...he would release his tax returns after the audit was complete.  Now his team is saying that they won't release them at all."

 

trump is doing what he said he would do, in terms of policy and governance.  no contradictions.

 

in terms of tax returns, yes he reversed field there, but the whole notion of tax return release is to see where a potus gets income from, to flesh out conflict issues.  is that really necessary with trump? you know where he gets income from cause he puts his name on the building when he does a deal. 

[rb]

"As investors, students of Buffett, ethical behaviour and in terms of intellectual honesty...this is completely contradictory to what he told supporters and non-supporters alike...he would release his tax returns after the audit was complete.  Now his team is saying that they won't release them at all."

 

trump is doing what he said he would do, in terms of policy and governance.  no contradictions.

 

in terms of tax returns, yes he reversed field there, but the whole notion of tax return release is to see where a potus gets income from, to flesh out conflict issues.  is that really necessary with trump? you know where he gets income from cause he puts his name on the building when he does a deal.

Well if everyone knows what's in there why won't he release them? We also all know he's rich right, really rich, so seeing that he makes a lot of money won't make a difference either because we all know that he makes a lot of money.

 

Isn't this always the argument from the right when it comes to either government surveillance or interaction with police or whatever. Cooperate fully. If you've done nothing wrong then you've got nothing to fear. It seems it's not thus when it pointed back to the home team. Also like it or not that's what's become as accepted norm for the job of President. It's open kimono show the taxes. If I would go to work for a job in a bank (or many other place) I have to let them run a credit check and other investigations despite what other credentials I might have.

[Guest cherzeca]

ok, for sure kill this thread

[Mephistopheles]

yates is a jill stein wannabe.  15 minutes of fame. 

 

the DOJ office of legal counsel had already passed on legality of EO.  if you know constitutional law re immigration, you know that trump had legal authority to issue this EO. yates violated her oath of office in deciding not to enforce a legal order.  she wanted to commit career suicide.  maybe will get a gig on CNN now

 

but more importantly, why are we debating this on an investment board?

 

Assume you are correct on all points...even though hundreds of thousands of protesters disagree with you, including a number of Republican party members, supporters and well-known Conservatives. 

 

You are telling me that this President's conduct so far, his compulsive tweeting, choice of words when characterising those that disagree with him, and the ridiculously inane and incompetent way he has executed this travel ban, doesn't worry you in the slightest? 

 

Top brass at the borders, Department of Homeland Security, foreign embassies, travel bureaus, you name it...had no idea what this ban meant and how to enforce it.  Citizens, green card holders, children, etc were held at borders or denied entry.  This was a major f**k up.  Sears executes their retail business with more competency!  Cheers!

 

George Bush, Obama and Hillary's State Department bomb and kill thousands of Muslims with unprecedented drone strikes, destroy entire countries, slaughter people in Iraq, create starvation in Yemen, and create this entire refugee crisis to begin with, and yet I don't recall any mass protests about that . . . 

 

But now your main worry is about how a travel ban was implemented.

 

Do you not see that perhaps your moral compass is a little askew?

 

There were mass protests against the Iraq war.

 

Secondly, how do you know Parsad wasn't bothered by all those wars and bombs?

 

Correct!  I was one of the few people who disagreed with going into Iraq...feel free to go back and look at old posts on the Motley Fool BRK Board.  Almost no one wanted to say anything about it then.  I had no problem with Afghanistan after 9/11, but I said going to Iraq was going to be a mistake.  I've had alot of issues with U.S. policy in the Middle East over the last 15 years, and Trump isn't about to make it better...it's just that he's also finally making it worse at home as well!  Cheers!

 

Same here, one of the few people who spoke out against that war, and I was only in high school.

[rb]

\

Should there be a middle ground,.... ? .... there is only a quantum wave function of quantized information and opinions in the information universe, nothing eise. Nothing static.

Especially if that quantum wave function come from Milo Yiannopoulos and bs videos posted on youtube right?

 

 

[Parsad]

"As investors, students of Buffett, ethical behaviour and in terms of intellectual honesty...this is completely contradictory to what he told supporters and non-supporters alike...he would release his tax returns after the audit was complete.  Now his team is saying that they won't release them at all."

 

trump is doing what he said he would do, in terms of policy and governance.  no contradictions.

 

in terms of tax returns, yes he reversed field there, but the whole notion of tax return release is to see where a potus gets income from, to flesh out conflict issues.  is that really necessary with trump? you know where he gets income from cause he puts his name on the building when he does a deal.

 

You're kidding me, right?  His tax return would show non-public partnerships/investments, offshore investments, income from undisclosed businesses, etc that could indicate enormous conflicts of interest.  That's why you provide disclosure and transparency.  It's why a President should have all assets and businesses in a blind trust. 

 

If you worry about conflicts of interest and expect disclosure from CEO's, shouldn't the occupant of the highest office in the land with the most influence be fully vetted?  This is just common sense!  You check the credit history of loan applicants, criminal checks for teachers, etc...why would the President be exempt from equivalent scrutiny? 

 

And if Trump supporters believe this is irrelevant, then why do they concern themselves with what the Clinton Foundation was doing, or other examples of conflicts of interest, unethical conduct, fraud, embezzlement, etc. 

 

Cheers!