3 ms·

Congress has given the Executive broad powers to control immigration from countries. Please explain how a coup d'etat is happening. Obama bombed many of these c

by jquery 10y ago

Congress has given the Executive broad powers to control immigration from countries. Please explain how a coup d'etat is happening. Obama bombed many of these countries and killed citizens of them, but I don't remember that being a scandal.

closeparen 10y ago
A federal judge issued an injunction against enforcement of part of the executive order. In a release titled "Response To Recent Litigation," DHS announced that it would continue to enforce the order. That sounds for all the world like the executive branch rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.
- jquery 10y ago
  IANAL but the injunction was narrow in scope. Nothing in the DHS response contradicts that.
  - pduszak 10y ago
    The very first line implies that the injunction will be ignored. If they didn't want that interpreted that way, then they should have definitely written it differently.
- anarazel 10y ago
  The injunction was only about travelers in flight or already landed. Most of those have been released. The statement says "in a foreign land" and "without ties to the United States" - which is outside of what the injunction applies to.
- icelancer 10y ago
  Yes, because the stay is not permanent. It only applies to those in transit and those affected now. The statement then goes on to say: "The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders..." So no, the executive branch is not rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.
gizmo686 10y ago
>but I don't remember that being a scandal. I do remember that being a scandal. To your main point, a story has been going around that a court has put a stay on the executive order. If true, this would mean that enforcing the order is currently illegal; and doing so could be called a "coup" by the executive branch (although I don't think this technically qualifies as a coup). Having said that, my understanding is that the referenced court case only applies to the specific individuals who sued, so enforcement of the order is still legal in all other cases.
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  One rule the courts generally follow is that they try to limit the scope of their rulings. Plus, of course, the country is divided into several federal districts, and a ruling in one district doesn't necessarily apply to other districts. So I understood the injunction out of a San Francisco courtroom only applied to particular travelers whom, via the ACLU, had filed a challenge to how the order was applied to them. The injunction does not apply to other travelers, other federal districts, or people who are affected by the order for other reasons. I understand the DHS statement to simply amount to "we aren't lawyers, so until a judge rules on whether the entire order is constitutional, we have to assume it is and act accordingly. We have lawyers on staff who will tell us how other rulings affect our actions, and how far those rulings go." It's important to remember that executive orders are legally binding on people who work for the president, but not anyone else. Usually, they say how an ambiguous law will be interpreted, or they add limitations on top of what the law requires. In this case, the president has directed various people to take certain actions. The courts will have to determine if those actions are legal. It wouldn't surprise me if some actions are legal (cabinet members are supposed to review the policies for the refugee program) and others aren't (prioritize immigrants based on their religion). But DHS doesn't get to conduct its own review of the order; they have to assume the whole thing is legally binding. If multiple federal courts start granting injunctions against particular parts of the order, then things might change. I'm not sure how that works; although I am sure that government-paid lawyers will conduct their own review of the order, and I strongly suspect that the president has to approve any decisions to not implement a portion of an executive order.
gotchange 10y ago
No, it was Bush who bombed and destabilized the ME, and Obama was the one who didn't do enough to save the region -- the red line controversy -- and watched idly while the Arab Spring crumbling which led indirectly to the rise of ISIS and the next wave of global Islamic terrorism that we're living through.

by jquery 10y ago

closeparen 10y ago

A federal judge issued an injunction against enforcement of part of the executive order. In a release titled "Response To Recent Litigation," DHS announced that it would continue to enforce the order. That sounds for all the world like the executive branch rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.

jquery 10y ago
IANAL but the injunction was narrow in scope. Nothing in the DHS response contradicts that.
- pduszak 10y ago
  The very first line implies that the injunction will be ignored. If they didn't want that interpreted that way, then they should have definitely written it differently.
anarazel 10y ago
The injunction was only about travelers in flight or already landed. Most of those have been released. The statement says "in a foreign land" and "without ties to the United States" - which is outside of what the injunction applies to.
icelancer 10y ago
Yes, because the stay is not permanent. It only applies to those in transit and those affected now. The statement then goes on to say: "The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders..." So no, the executive branch is not rejecting the authority of the judicial branch.

gizmo686 10y ago

>but I don't remember that being a scandal. I do remember that being a scandal. To your main point, a story has been going around that a court has put a stay on the executive order. If true, this would mean that enforcing the order is currently illegal; and doing so could be called a "coup" by the executive branch (although I don't think this technically qualifies as a coup). Having said that, my understanding is that the referenced court case only applies to the specific individuals who sued, so enforcement of the order is still legal in all other cases.

maxlybbert 10y ago
One rule the courts generally follow is that they try to limit the scope of their rulings. Plus, of course, the country is divided into several federal districts, and a ruling in one district doesn't necessarily apply to other districts. So I understood the injunction out of a San Francisco courtroom only applied to particular travelers whom, via the ACLU, had filed a challenge to how the order was applied to them. The injunction does not apply to other travelers, other federal districts, or people who are affected by the order for other reasons. I understand the DHS statement to simply amount to "we aren't lawyers, so until a judge rules on whether the entire order is constitutional, we have to assume it is and act accordingly. We have lawyers on staff who will tell us how other rulings affect our actions, and how far those rulings go." It's important to remember that executive orders are legally binding on people who work for the president, but not anyone else. Usually, they say how an ambiguous law will be interpreted, or they add limitations on top of what the law requires. In this case, the president has directed various people to take certain actions. The courts will have to determine if those actions are legal. It wouldn't surprise me if some actions are legal (cabinet members are supposed to review the policies for the refugee program) and others aren't (prioritize immigrants based on their religion). But DHS doesn't get to conduct its own review of the order; they have to assume the whole thing is legally binding. If multiple federal courts start granting injunctions against particular parts of the order, then things might change. I'm not sure how that works; although I am sure that government-paid lawyers will conduct their own review of the order, and I strongly suspect that the president has to approve any decisions to not implement a portion of an executive order.

gotchange 10y ago

No, it was Bush who bombed and destabilized the ME, and Obama was the one who didn't do enough to save the region -- the red line controversy -- and watched idly while the Arab Spring crumbling which led indirectly to the rise of ISIS and the next wave of global Islamic terrorism that we're living through.