Customs agents refuse to follow court order and continue enforcement the executive order

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Send in the US Marshals.

Reminds me of Andrew Jackson's comment about Justice John Marshall's decision on a controversial case:

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

+1

Kind of like Stalin saying "and how many battalions does the Pope command?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Send in the US Marshals.

Reminds me of Andrew Jackson's comment about Justice John Marshall's decision on a controversial case:

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

+1

Kind of like Stalin saying "and how many battalions does the Pope command?"

Yes, very much on the same lines!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Send in the US Marshals.

+1. This is what happens next. The Marshals are the Judicial systems law enforcement branch. They go in and compel compliance. The Judge should be able to hold ICE agents in contempts. Possibly jail. But this sets up a scenario when Trump (okay Bannon) tries to stop the marshals (FBI? National Guard? I'm guessing FBI since he has Comey in his pocket). And it could get very ugly, very fast, and what happens next is unpredictable. We have three branches of government for a reason. And whether you support Trump or not, this should disturb you greatly. Because Trump just have the Constitution the big middle finger.

Trump should have taken Mr. Kahn's pocket copy of the Constitution and read it. Also, I'm pretty sure Trump does not know the difference between a green card, a student visa, a tourist visa, an H1B visa, a citizen from visa waiver country, and an illegal alien.

Customs and DHS are as well-armed as the US Marshals. The could just as easily arrest the marshals for trying to obstruct DHS's customs operations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Send in the US Marshals.

Reminds me of Andrew Jackson's comment about Justice John Marshall's decision on a controversial case:

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Wonderful. The Executive Agencies of the POTUS who referenced "law and order" in his inaugural address not respecting the rule of law.

Why does no one care about the Constitution? And before you bring up Obama, I thought some of his excesses were abhorrent as well...but at least his and Bush's had a clear policy justification. Trump seems to be willfully hurting immigrants for no apparent reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

ICE agents work for Trump. If they don't follow their boss' order, they would be in contempt.

This is clearly within the authority of the executive branch to implement policies for public safety. The constitutionality of the order will be decided by the supreme court.

No, they are in contempt of court. They have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means respecting checks and balances and the ability of the judicial branch to stay implementation of Federal law/EOs pending review of the legality/constitutionality. Trump does not get to unilaterally demand that Federal employees (who do not work for Trump directly) do his bidding no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Meh. Obama ordered his administration to violate laws and to ignore others.

Obama repeatedly violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. So in defending our country as best he can, I can't fault the President for following Obama's example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

ICE agents work for Trump. If they don't follow their boss' order, they would be in contempt.

This is clearly within the authority of the executive branch to implement policies for public safety. The constitutionality of the order will be decided by the supreme court.

No, they are in contempt of court. They have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means respecting checks and balances and the ability of the judicial branch to stay implementation of Federal law/EOs pending review of the legality/constitutionality. Trump does not get to unilaterally demand that Federal employees (who do not work for Trump directly) do his bidding no matter what.

It's actually not required by the constitution that the courts have the ultimate say on whether something is constitutional and that the other branches must comply. That idea didn't come around until Mabury v. Madison. It's just as defensible to say that executive branch officers that swore an oath to uphold the constitution have a duty to ignore an incorrect court order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Obama ordered his administration to violate laws and to ignore others.

Obama repeatedly violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. So in defending our country as best he can, I can't fault the President for following Obama's example.

Wrong. Whatever you think of Obama, his admin never defied a court order. That's blatantly illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

ICE agents work for Trump. If they don't follow their boss' order, they would be in contempt.

This is clearly within the authority of the executive branch to implement policies for public safety. The constitutionality of the order will be decided by the supreme court.

No, they are in contempt of court. They have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means respecting checks and balances and the ability of the judicial branch to stay implementation of Federal law/EOs pending review of the legality/constitutionality. Trump does not get to unilaterally demand that Federal employees (who do not work for Trump directly) do his bidding no matter what.

It's actually not required by the constitution that the courts have the ultimate say on whether something is constitutional and that the other branches must comply. That idea didn't come around until Mabury v. Madison. It's just as defensible to say that executive branch officers that swore an oath to uphold the constitution have a duty to ignore an incorrect court order.

I it isn't just as defensible because Marburg v Madison is the law of the US. You are advocating an upending of the entire system of laws of our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

ICE agents work for Trump. If they don't follow their boss' order, they would be in contempt.

This is clearly within the authority of the executive branch to implement policies for public safety. The constitutionality of the order will be decided by the supreme court.

No, they are in contempt of court. They have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means respecting checks and balances and the ability of the judicial branch to stay implementation of Federal law/EOs pending review of the legality/constitutionality. Trump does not get to unilaterally demand that Federal employees (who do not work for Trump directly) do his bidding no matter what.

It's actually not required by the constitution that the courts have the ultimate say on whether something is constitutional and that the other branches must comply. That idea didn't come around until Mabury v. Madison. It's just as defensible to say that executive branch officers that swore an oath to uphold the constitution have a duty to ignore an incorrect court order.

I it isn't just as defensible because Marburg v Madison is the law of the US. You are advocating an upending of the entire system of laws of our country.

Yes it's the law based on court precedent but it isn't dictated by the constitution. So saying that the executive officers "won't follow the constitution" is not accurate. Just pointing that out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

ICE agents work for Trump. If they don't follow their boss' order, they would be in contempt.

This is clearly within the authority of the executive branch to implement policies for public safety. The constitutionality of the order will be decided by the supreme court.

That's not how it works. Sorry.

+1. I come on D.C.Um and am constantly appalled that so many adults managed to graduate from high school without learning about checks and balances and the federal court system. The ignorance is mind boggling. And dangerous.

But I agree that the ICE agents are screwed because they are getting orders from two different directions. Problem is, Brannon's order is illegal. But it is hard to ignore an illegal order from the White House when your boss was just fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Send in the US Marshals.

+1. This is what happens next. The Marshals are the Judicial systems law enforcement branch. They go in and compel compliance. The Judge should be able to hold ICE agents in contempts. Possibly jail. But this sets up a scenario when Trump (okay Bannon) tries to stop the marshals (FBI? National Guard? I'm guessing FBI since he has Comey in his pocket). And it could get very ugly, very fast, and what happens next is unpredictable. We have three branches of government for a reason. And whether you support Trump or not, this should disturb you greatly. Because Trump just have the Constitution the big middle finger.

Trump should have taken Mr. Kahn's pocket copy of the Constitution and read it. Also, I'm pretty sure Trump does not know the difference between a green card, a student visa, a tourist visa, an H1B visa, a citizen from visa waiver country, and an illegal alien.

That's wrong. Don't spout silly stuff. We have a nice new phrase for that, and you won't like to hear it applied to yourself.

Am I wrong, or did Comey not make a splash about emails before the election, but not disclose Russian interference? For which loyalty, Trump asked him to stay on. And he agreed. He has been bought and paid for by Trump, and has shown that he is loyal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Obama ordered his administration to violate laws and to ignore others.

Obama repeatedly violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. So in defending our country as best he can, I can't fault the President for following Obama's example.

citation and source? didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Send in the US Marshals.

+1. This is what happens next. The Marshals are the Judicial systems law enforcement branch. They go in and compel compliance. The Judge should be able to hold ICE agents in contempts. Possibly jail. But this sets up a scenario when Trump (okay Bannon) tries to stop the marshals (FBI? National Guard? I'm guessing FBI since he has Comey in his pocket). And it could get very ugly, very fast, and what happens next is unpredictable. We have three branches of government for a reason. And whether you support Trump or not, this should disturb you greatly. Because Trump just have the Constitution the big middle finger.

Trump should have taken Mr. Kahn's pocket copy of the Constitution and read it. Also, I'm pretty sure Trump does not know the difference between a green card, a student visa, a tourist visa, an H1B visa, a citizen from visa waiver country, and an illegal alien.

Customs and DHS are as well-armed as the US Marshals. The could just as easily arrest the marshals for trying to obstruct DHS's customs operations.

Which is really a constitutional nightmare, when two branches of the federal government end up in a shootout. If Trump gave this order, it's illegal, and we have had our first clear and unambiguous impeachable offense.

[Anonymous]

I work at DHS. I think the EO is disgusting but dhs employees are being put in an impossible decision. I heard there were cBP and tsa agents crying at dulles last night. The average employee of the federal government depends on their superiors to know what they are legally supposed to do. If they were getting one message from their bosses and one from the press?

When. The DAPA injunction came down department leadership immediately instructed compliance. IMO our ire should be directed at dhs leadership not customs officers who are not legal experts