President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[BlueK]

Interesting discussion.

Is President Trump’s executive order constitutional?

I agree with Rivkin. Can't have the judiciary ruling on foreign policy. That opens a whole can of worms. Who knows if it will be effective or not (I doubt it will be), but that's not the issue. I don't like this order, but it seems to me the president is empowered to issue it and act on it.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/w...s-871464003958



This clip shows some of the questions from the judge and the answers given by the lawyers.

[Applejack]

Interesting discussion.

Is President Trump’s executive order constitutional?

I agree with Rivkin. Can't have the judiciary ruling on foreign policy. That opens a whole can of worms. Who knows if it will be effective or not (I doubt it will be), but that's not the issue. I don't like this order, but it seems to me the president is empowered to issue it and act on it.

Yeah, as much as I dislike what this Order does to American Values, I think Trump definitely has the authority to control immigration. It will turn on whether there is an unconstitutional discrimination in the order (religion, duh!) or whether this is to control immigration. Trump's previous statements (tweets!) may hurt him here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am not sure this is the best thread for this, but here goes. Check out this essay:

https://medium.com/@tuckerfitzgerald...939#.5s19vo3i7

As I was reading the first few paragraphs, I thought it was satire, but the guy is serious.

I have some difficult news for everyone: Progressives aren’t interested in diversity. We aren’t interested in inclusion. We aren’t interested in tolerance. The progressives I know give exactly zero shits about those things.

We have no interest in everyone getting treated the same. We have no interest in giving all ideas equal airtime. We have no interest in “tolerating” all beliefs. I don’t know where this fairy tale comes from, but it’s completely disconnected from every experience I’ve had with progressive liberal folks in my lifetime.

Here’s a great example of a liberal relationship to diversity: when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was asked how many women on the Supreme Court would be enough, she answered “When there are nine.” In response to the collective gasp of every conservative on earth, she elaborated. “For most of the country’s history, there were nine and they were all men. Nobody thought that was strange.”

Personally I’m not interested in a female president for the sake of “diversity.” Putting a woman in the white house in 2020 won’t mean that gender equality has arrived. We’ve had 43 presidents. It’s going to take 43 women serving as president before we even have a chance to reach parity.
Do you get it now?

Uh... OK.

Then this little gem:

Furthermore, conservative Christians have allied themselves with racism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, mass incarceration, war crimes, death sentences, and gun culture. These Christians work actively to undermine scientific thinking. Anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-intellectual, and anti-factual. None of these line up with the values most universities share.

Comment section was interesting.

[beefytee]

I haven't been following the details of this much, so the one question I have is, how can the President get a way with blocking entry of those with permanent residency?

Don't they have a legal right to live in the country (I would think that included entering the country) as long as they don't commit certain offenses?

Sure he has executive authority, but isn't that authority to execute the laws laid out by congress? I thought the legal rights of permanent residence was pretty clear under the law.

Maybe that part has been already overturned and I missed it.

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/aft...anent-resident

[creekster]

Interesting discussion.

Is President Trump’s executive order constitutional?

I agree with Rivkin. Can't have the judiciary ruling on foreign policy. That opens a whole can of worms. Who knows if it will be effective or not (I doubt it will be), but that's not the issue. I don't like this order, but it seems to me the president is empowered to issue it and act on it.

That was my thought, too. We may dislike the order, but it seemed to me it was within his authority to issue it. But if there is a way around it, the wicky wacky ninth will find it.

[byu71]

I am not sure this is the best thread for this, but here goes. Check out this essay:

https://medium.com/@tuckerfitzgerald...939#.5s19vo3i7

As I was reading the first few paragraphs, I thought it was satire, but the guy is serious.





Uh... OK.

Then this little gem:



Comment section was interesting.

I think he has a point as far as the "far left" goes. Liberal these days could include the far left and what I would call reasonable liberals. Same with the "far right" and reasonable conservatives. As far as liberals go I have been guilty of conflating the two (far left and reasonable) and haven't meant to. I think there are a lot of liberals on this site, but none would I consider "far left"

Seems like any movement has a extreme element and they seem to capture the focus as they are the most active. For instance we still have room to improve as far as race relations go. I don't think black lives matter helps the cause nor do I think a professor, last name Dyson, who is very smart and articulate helps. He is calling for the government to somehow give whites a credit in their accounts which they then turn over to blacks as reparation. I think I am close to what he is suggesting.

[byu71]

I haven't been following the details of this much, so the one question I have is, how can the President get a way with blocking entry of those with permanent residency?

Don't they have a legal right to live in the country (I would think that included entering the country) as long as they don't commit certain offenses?

Sure he has executive authority, but isn't that authority to execute the laws laid out by congress? I thought the legal rights of permanent residence was pretty clear under the law.

Maybe that part has been already overturned and I missed it.

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/aft...anent-resident

It is my understanding the order has been changed as to not exclude them. There also has been a change to allow certain Iraqi's who have helped us a waiver.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think he has a point as far as the "far left" goes. Liberal these days could include the far left and what I would call reasonable liberals. Same with the "far right" and reasonable conservatives. As far as liberals go I have been guilty of conflating the two (far left and reasonable) and haven't meant to. I think there are a lot of liberals on this site, but none would I consider "far left"

Seems like any movement has a extreme element and they seem to capture the focus as they are the most active. For instance we still have room to improve as far as race relations go. I don't think black lives matter helps the cause nor do I think a professor, last name Dyson, who is very smart and articulate helps. He is calling for the government to somehow give whites a credit in their accounts which they then turn over to blacks as reparation. I think I am close to what he is suggesting.

He has a point? He is not mocking the far left and liberal extremism. He is defending it.

[byu71]

He has a point? He is not mocking the far left and liberal extremism. He is defending it.

I know. What I meant is that I think most of the far left would agree with his defense, even if they would not admit it. This idea of blowing up the system and starting over I believe is something both the far left and far right believe in. The start over however would be quite different.

If I am still unclear, I welcome your help in clarifying what I mean.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know. What I meant is that I think most of the far left would agree with his defense, even if they would not admit it. This idea of blowing up the system and starting over I believe is something both the far left and far right believe in. The start over however would be quite different.

If I am still unclear, I welcome your help in clarifying what I mean.

Ok.

For the record, "has a point" typically means you agree with him.

[BlueK]

That was my thought, too. We may dislike the order, but it seemed to me it was within his authority to issue it. But if there is a way around it, the wicky wacky ninth will find it.

Let's see what the so-called judges decide. But whatever the decision is, we know the so-called Supreme Court is going to ultimately decide.

[Commando]

That was my thought, too. We may dislike the order, but it seemed to me it was within his authority to issue it. But if there is a way around it, the wicky wacky ninth will find it.

The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the executive the right to regulate immigration for specific countries when there is a threat that needs addressed. Also the constitution grants the president emergency wartime powers. I don't think either situation applies.

[Commando]

I agree with Rivkin. Can't have the judiciary ruling on foreign policy. That opens a whole can of worms. Who knows if it will be effective or not (I doubt it will be), but that's not the issue. I don't like this order, but it seems to me the president is empowered to issue it and act on it.

The judiciary does and has ruled, not on foreign policy, but on admissible classes of aliens and the rights afforded to them. The president can't overrule those laws without a compelling emergent situation. His need to fulfill ridiculous campaign promises isn't one of them.

[byu71]

So do we all agree whatever the final outcome is by having gone through the judicial process there should be no mocking the judges or protesting against the decision.

I think this is not muslim ban, but will move on whatever the courts decide.

[imanihonjin]

So do we all agree whatever the final outcome is by having gone through the judicial process there should be no mocking the judges or protesting against the decision.

I think this is not muslim ban, but will move on whatever the courts decide.

By whom? The public ought to be able to retain that right and even the president "should" be able to do it, it just doesn't reflect well on any president who would openly mock the judiciary.