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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those CBP agents better lawyer up; can you say Bivens Actions?

The low-level guys will be certified as acting within the scope of their authority assuming they are following orders. It's the higher-ups who may be in trouble but only if they are willfully defying a judge's order. Given the confusion that's not a given.

Depends on how long this goes on. It's looking more like disobedience and contempt and less like confusion.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/01/29/customs-and-border-protection-still-not-allowing-lawyers-to-see-detainees/

But it's Sunday. If there's no clarification and action on Monday, then we'll see.

What do we call this? Martial law doesn't seem right. Constitutional crisis sounds too...academic. What is this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What do we call this? Martial law doesn't seem right. Constitutional crisis sounds too...academic. What is this?

High crimes and misdemeanors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those CBP agents better lawyer up; can you say Bivens Actions?

The low-level guys will be certified as acting within the scope of their authority assuming they are following orders. It's the higher-ups who may be in trouble but only if they are willfully defying a judge's order. Given the confusion that's not a given.

Depends on how long this goes on. It's looking more like disobedience and contempt and less like confusion.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/01/29/customs-and-border-protection-still-not-allowing-lawyers-to-see-detainees/

But it's Sunday. If there's no clarification and action on Monday, then we'll see.

Agree. Kind of hard for CBP too because the orders from the top apparently keep changing (eg, Priebus saying green cards won't be affected, but giving no details). It's hard to enforce any policy when you don't know what the policy is. But at a minimum it should be exceedingly clear that detainees / travelers must be permitted access to lawyers under the various court orders, so if they are still withholding access tomorrow, I would expect ACLU and others to move for contempt or some other enforcement mechanism on that issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not a lawyer...

I am, actually. I just think it's laughable when people point the finger and say "you don't care about the constitution," when really SCOTUS (along with everyone else) has been shitting on the constitution for decades. So don't try to take the constitutional high ground after finding magical rights for men to marry each other, for the government to regulate the size of holes in Swiss cheese, etc. The "constitution" is just a rhetorical device at this point.

[Anonymous]

"A senior White House official said Sunday that the president had the right and Constitutional power to enact the order. According to the official, the judge's decision changed nothing.

"All stopped visas will remain stopped. All halted admissions will remain halted. All restricted travel will remain prohibited," the official said. "The executive order is a vital action toward strengthening America's borders, and therefore sovereignty. The order remains in place.""

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/civil-rights-groups-fight-trump-s-refugee-ban-uncertainty-continues-n713811

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not a lawyer...

I am, actually. I just think it's laughable when people point the finger and say "you don't care about the constitution," when really SCOTUS (along with everyone else) has been shitting on the constitution for decades. So don't try to take the constitutional high ground after finding magical rights for men to marry each other, for the government to regulate the size of holes in Swiss cheese, etc. The "constitution" is just a rhetorical device at this point.

Well, I can see you miss Scalia very much. I still think that this 200-year-old decision is as close to settled law as we are ever going to get in this country. So, you can argue if the court got it wrong back in 1803, but it's not really relevant to this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not a lawyer...

I am, actually. I just think it's laughable when people point the finger and say "you don't care about the constitution," when really SCOTUS (along with everyone else) has been shitting on the constitution for decades. So don't try to take the constitutional high ground after finding magical rights for men to marry each other, for the government to regulate the size of holes in Swiss cheese, etc. The "constitution" is just a rhetorical device at this point.

Well, I can see you miss Scalia very much. I still think that this 200-year-old decision is as close to settled law as we are ever going to get in this country. So, you can argue if the court got it wrong back in 1803, but it's not really relevant to this conversation.

I agree. I am just airing my sour grapes. Scalia is great but he was a total commerce clause troll (Gonzalez v Raich etc.). Thomas is probably the best all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not a lawyer...

I am, actually. I just think it's laughable when people point the finger and say "you don't care about the constitution," when really SCOTUS (along with everyone else) has been shitting on the constitution for decades. So don't try to take the constitutional high ground after finding magical rights for men to marry each other, for the government to regulate the size of holes in Swiss cheese, etc. The "constitution" is just a rhetorical device at this point.

Some lawyer. I think you missed the point that the Constitution is whatever Scotus says it is, unless there's an actual Constitutional Amendment passed. Marbury v. Madison was decided 200 years ago and it's been that way ever since. People way smarter than you or me have interpreted the Constitution for decades. The fact that you disagree with their interpretations means nothing. It's the law. Get over it.

[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.

This^^^

[Anonymous]

It is impeachable to directly violate the court order. Toss it on the pile with treason (Russia) and Emoluments.

[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.

Marbury v Madison is not a law, it's judicial precedent....there's a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do we call this? Martial law doesn't seem right. Constitutional crisis sounds too...academic. What is this?

High crimes and misdemeanors.

+1. Bingo. Also, customs agents without jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those CBP agents better lawyer up; can you say Bivens Actions?

The low-level guys will be certified as acting within the scope of their authority assuming they are following orders. It's the higher-ups who may be in trouble but only if they are willfully defying a judge's order. Given the confusion that's not a given.

Depends on how long this goes on. It's looking more like disobedience and contempt and less like confusion.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/01/29/customs-and-border-protection-still-not-allowing-lawyers-to-see-detainees/

But it's Sunday. If there's no clarification and action on Monday, then we'll see.

What do we call this? Martial law doesn't seem right. Constitutional crisis sounds too...academic. What is this?

It's called our system of government working within the context of a legal framework. Not all judicial decisions are correct, not all executive orders are error free. The process works to correct problems. I am glad there are capable people involved to figure out the right path forward. We should all take a deep breath and stop being overly dramatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Marbury v Madison is not a law, it's judicial precedent....there's a big difference.

Your comment explains the current saturation situation in our legal industry if you're a lawyer. Our country is a common law jurisdiction and we are bound by the principle of stare decisis--so yes it is a law.

[Anonymous]

And to make it more interesting, Sens Graham and McCain just issues a statement just savaging the EO and basically calling Trump incompetent for "not thinking it out." Looks like the Republican Party just found it's spine. Congress should move quickly on this. Them plus Collins, and it looks like Congress's first action will be to slap Trump around.