4 ms·

I feel alone on this board in thinking this. While I believe the execution of the order was clumsy (why ban green card holders who have already made a life for

by zeroer 10y ago

I feel alone on this board in thinking this. While I believe the execution of the order was clumsy (why ban green card holders who have already made a life for themselves here and people already mid-flight?), the people of any nation have the right to self determination and have to have complete control over who comes into their country. Trump did not hide his intentions about what he was going to do once in office. He said it loudly and repeatedly. And he still got roughly half the votes.

matt4077 10y ago
Two issues: Regarding the specific cases currently making the news, I believe there's a competing argument that people should have the assurance that their personal relation with the government is governed by a set of predictable rules and not subject to sudden and dramatic changes. That would include that any administration is in some way bound by the commitments of their predecessors. To use a less controversial example: If I painted the walls in the white house, finishing 10 minutes before Trump was sworn in, should the new administration be required to pay me? Secondly, there are limits to the power of the majority, even in a democracy: "Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". These limits are defined by the constitution. The bill of rights for individual rights, and much of the rest for the mechanisms of government. That's why Trump won't be God-Emperor His Trumpitrump the First, even though he could probably get the electoral college votes for it. That may seem somewhat unconstitutional, and it requires a definition of "democracy" that is far more complicated than majority-rule, which is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority".
- zeroer 10y ago
  I agree with you. I wonder if Trump did this in the most inflammatory way he could manage on purpose.
village-idiot 10y ago
Beyond moral rules, the President's power is constrained both by the Constitution and Congress. He is not within his right to issue executive orders that violate the previous.
- zeroer 10y ago
  Does this executive order violate the constitution?
  - village-idiot 10y ago
    IANAL: The constitutionality of this EO is a bit beyond by expertise, but it does appear to me to violate at least one federal law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      An E.O. which violates Constitutionally-valid statutory restriction on the executive is, ipso facto, a violation of the provision of the Constitution empowering Congress with the authority to control the matter addressed by the statute.
    - zeroer 10y ago
      The text of the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 That law mentions visa issuance. But Trump is disallowing people with valid visas from coming in. Is it actually illegal? If so, what specifically is the conflict?

by zeroer 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

Two issues: Regarding the specific cases currently making the news, I believe there's a competing argument that people should have the assurance that their personal relation with the government is governed by a set of predictable rules and not subject to sudden and dramatic changes. That would include that any administration is in some way bound by the commitments of their predecessors. To use a less controversial example: If I painted the walls in the white house, finishing 10 minutes before Trump was sworn in, should the new administration be required to pay me? Secondly, there are limits to the power of the majority, even in a democracy: "Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". These limits are defined by the constitution. The bill of rights for individual rights, and much of the rest for the mechanisms of government. That's why Trump won't be God-Emperor His Trumpitrump the First, even though he could probably get the electoral college votes for it. That may seem somewhat unconstitutional, and it requires a definition of "democracy" that is far more complicated than majority-rule, which is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority".

zeroer 10y ago
I agree with you. I wonder if Trump did this in the most inflammatory way he could manage on purpose.

village-idiot 10y ago

Beyond moral rules, the President's power is constrained both by the Constitution and Congress. He is not within his right to issue executive orders that violate the previous.

zeroer 10y ago
Does this executive order violate the constitution?
- village-idiot 10y ago
  IANAL: The constitutionality of this EO is a bit beyond by expertise, but it does appear to me to violate at least one federal law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    An E.O. which violates Constitutionally-valid statutory restriction on the executive is, ipso facto, a violation of the provision of the Constitution empowering Congress with the authority to control the matter addressed by the statute.
  - zeroer 10y ago
    The text of the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 That law mentions visa issuance. But Trump is disallowing people with valid visas from coming in. Is it actually illegal? If so, what specifically is the conflict?