Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Wrong! Executive branch officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution. If the Supreme Court violated the constitution, they are duty-bound to ignore that Court order.

Good one. What TTT law school did you attend? Liberty?

Anonymous wrote: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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

either way visitors from any of these countries need to be scrutinized who keep coming back and forth and no more refugees let in. FINALLY someone has the spine and balls to do something about it!!!

All those scary refugees, fleeing persecution. Boo!

Sure they are.FLEEING??? HAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHA they don't live in the country that first offers them asylum in Europe but they rather move on to more prosperous wealthy nations that have more benefits. Fleeing my ass.

This exactly - and thank you for having the courage to write the truth.

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

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.

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

Yup the court has the power to have the ultimate say over the meaning of the Constitution just because it says it does, and we've allowed it to get away with it for 200 years

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Wrong! Executive branch officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution. If the Supreme Court violated the constitution, they are duty-bound to ignore that Court order.

Anonymous wrote:I hope this isn't true.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BoutrousTed/status/825570048739717120

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kelly himself said the green cards will be honored and valid. That should really end this.

Kelly is required to take his orders from trump.

Anonymous wrote:Kelly himself said the green cards will be honored and valid. That should really end this.

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.

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.

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.