4 ms·

> It's a matter for the judiciary to determine I'm pretty sure any oath of office, including those in the executive, include the protection of the constitution

> It's a matter for the judiciary to determine I'm pretty sure any oath of office, including those in the executive, include the protection of the constitution and bill of rights. To leave the defence of the constitution solely in the hands of the judiciary is terribly dangerous, especially considering how politicised that branch has become. > It seems perfectly sensible [..] to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated. There are enough articles out there why it's not reasonable (mostly the fact that there haven't been any attacks from citizens of those countries in the US, that it would have been reasonable to continue the SQ while any review is ongoing, that the review could have been done during the transition etc.) The acting AG's issues where not about "reasonable", but "legal". Specifically – with regards to the actual cases she would have had to defend – the legality of removing people holding permanent residency permits. The illegality of removing green card holders is pretty obvious. To quote the Department of Homeland Security: As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to: - Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law - Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons) - Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions Your Responsibilities as a Permanent Resident As a permanent resident, you are: - Required to obey all laws of the United States the states, and localities - Required to file your income tax returns and report your income to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities - Expected to support the democratic form of government and not to change the government through illegal means - Required, if you are a male age 18 through 25, to register with the Selective Service https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/ri...

cookiecaper 10y ago
Nitpicks over specific laws do not justify invocation of the oath of office. Despite what this thread is trying to pretend, it is not conventional for the AG to play SCOTUS and pre-emptively declare the administration's position indefensible. Ms. Yates has not offered any legal rationale for her position. She is failing to uphold the Constitution by undermining the operation of the executive branch and the authority of the chief executive without a compelling constitutional cause. In principle, you're correct that AGs should decline to participate in the implementation of clearly unconstitutional instructions. However, no such plain and obvious unconstitutionality exists in this case. There's nothing even close. All actual legal complaints raised to this point involve potential collisions with obscure, decades-old laws. It's the judiciary's role to handle that type of conflict.
- matt4077 10y ago
  See above: Green Cards confer full protection of law, including entry, to the extend of rights afforded to citizens. The exceptions are limited to people committing crimes or leaving the US for prolonged times. That is an exhaustive list (other laws include a generic clause like "and as deemed necessary by the Department of..."). EO cannot break laws, only modify their implementation. There is no room for interpretation. You could argue that the right of entry is not in the constitution – but I'm pretty sure even Scalia would have found a way to argue that US citizens have constitutional right to entry into the US (It's probably not in the bill of rights because it's too obvious) See also the Watergate precedent: the AG refused to fire the special prosecutor investigating Nixon, in defiance of a direct order by the President. His replacement also refused and was fired, only the third in line complied. Those sacrifices went a long way to create the political climate in which the (now universally recognised as such) crook Nixon had no choice but to resign.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    You're going all over the place here. I understand your opinion that Mr. Trump's EO is illegal. That's fine, but it's not relevant, unless you're a federal judge who likes to post on HN in his free time? And even then, it's irrelevant until this case comes before the bench and gets a fair hearing. In the Saturday Night Massacre, the two AGs in question did resign rather than carry out Mr. Nixon's order. They didn't claim a fundamental constitutional conflict that would justify defiance; rather, they claimed personal reservations and recognized that those reservations made it impossible to observe the established chain of command, so they stepped aside. The issue here is whether it's appropriate for the acting AG to hijack the DoJ based on their private opinion on matters of nuanced legal interpretation, of which reasonable people can be on either side, and which have not yet been given a fair hearing in a court of law. That is absolutely not the convention and the oath of office does not require it (and indeed, Ms. Yates does not claim it does). Until such time as the constitutional violation becomes blatant, the DoJ has a constitutional obligation to serve the people's elected chief executive. Ms. Yates was actively involved in blocking such fair hearings based on nothing but her personal proclivities. Following the precedent of SNM, she should've resigned over personal reservations. In this instance, there is no justification for defiance. Ms. Yates's behavior looks very questionable and unprofessional to me. She stayed on board for Obama's EOs, which everyone knew were illegal at the time of signing, and was happy to allow the judiciary to make its call there, but is not willing to do so in Mr. Trump's case, where the legal justification appears much more sound.

cookiecaper 10y ago

Nitpicks over specific laws do not justify invocation of the oath of office. Despite what this thread is trying to pretend, it is not conventional for the AG to play SCOTUS and pre-emptively declare the administration's position indefensible. Ms. Yates has not offered any legal rationale for her position. She is failing to uphold the Constitution by undermining the operation of the executive branch and the authority of the chief executive without a compelling constitutional cause. In principle, you're correct that AGs should decline to participate in the implementation of clearly unconstitutional instructions. However, no such plain and obvious unconstitutionality exists in this case. There's nothing even close. All actual legal complaints raised to this point involve potential collisions with obscure, decades-old laws. It's the judiciary's role to handle that type of conflict.

matt4077 10y ago
See above: Green Cards confer full protection of law, including entry, to the extend of rights afforded to citizens. The exceptions are limited to people committing crimes or leaving the US for prolonged times. That is an exhaustive list (other laws include a generic clause like "and as deemed necessary by the Department of..."). EO cannot break laws, only modify their implementation. There is no room for interpretation. You could argue that the right of entry is not in the constitution – but I'm pretty sure even Scalia would have found a way to argue that US citizens have constitutional right to entry into the US (It's probably not in the bill of rights because it's too obvious) See also the Watergate precedent: the AG refused to fire the special prosecutor investigating Nixon, in defiance of a direct order by the President. His replacement also refused and was fired, only the third in line complied. Those sacrifices went a long way to create the political climate in which the (now universally recognised as such) crook Nixon had no choice but to resign.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  You're going all over the place here. I understand your opinion that Mr. Trump's EO is illegal. That's fine, but it's not relevant, unless you're a federal judge who likes to post on HN in his free time? And even then, it's irrelevant until this case comes before the bench and gets a fair hearing. In the Saturday Night Massacre, the two AGs in question did resign rather than carry out Mr. Nixon's order. They didn't claim a fundamental constitutional conflict that would justify defiance; rather, they claimed personal reservations and recognized that those reservations made it impossible to observe the established chain of command, so they stepped aside. The issue here is whether it's appropriate for the acting AG to hijack the DoJ based on their private opinion on matters of nuanced legal interpretation, of which reasonable people can be on either side, and which have not yet been given a fair hearing in a court of law. That is absolutely not the convention and the oath of office does not require it (and indeed, Ms. Yates does not claim it does). Until such time as the constitutional violation becomes blatant, the DoJ has a constitutional obligation to serve the people's elected chief executive. Ms. Yates was actively involved in blocking such fair hearings based on nothing but her personal proclivities. Following the precedent of SNM, she should've resigned over personal reservations. In this instance, there is no justification for defiance. Ms. Yates's behavior looks very questionable and unprofessional to me. She stayed on board for Obama's EOs, which everyone knew were illegal at the time of signing, and was happy to allow the judiciary to make its call there, but is not willing to do so in Mr. Trump's case, where the legal justification appears much more sound.