US Constitution vs POTUS

US Constitution vs POTUS

Well here we are, week two and yet another round of protesting. This time over an executive order banning nationals of 7 Muslim countries that it took less than 24 hours for a federal judge to be forced to rule on and against the POTUS.

Federal judge Ann Donnelly grants a stay to two Iraqi men who were entering the country legally as war heros. Men that actually fought for this country unlike the matter of fact, not alternative facts, draft dodging president. These are men that put their lives on the line for the freedoms of others.

Judge Donnelly ruled the order violates due process and equal protection. Surely the issue is going to be forced to climb its way up to the Supreme Court. Not necessarily this ruling but the effects of this executive order in general.

The world is watching, we shall see.

US Constitution vs POTUS
Add Opinion
0Girl Opinion
9Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guy

  • HarryBenton
    It's a reality check for Trump. You can't just sign an executive order and expect everything to just work out. You still have to think things through. Actions have consequences. This is why it's not a good idea to hand the keys of the White House to an angry orang-utan.
    Like 3 People
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

    The only "alternative facts" here being spun are your own. Donald Trump's executive order applies only to Syria. Those seven other countries come not from Trump but from Barack Obama's own Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. The order only continues Obama's previous policy with the added nation of Syria. That being said, it will be hilarious to see how this stay holds up in court. Hint: it won't. Because for one, Trump is only continuing the policy of Obama with the sole addition of Syria. And two, because Obama set the precedent, along with Jimmy Carter. As for being "Muslim majority," nobody made this a religious thing except for the Left. Sounds like projection to me. Furthermore it is peculiar that the 'progressive' ideology which prides itself on addressing disparate effects and empowering the minority would ignore the fact that Middle Eastern Christians are the demographic most disparately effected by terrorism, along with Shias, Jews, and Yazidis. Sounds like more Christophobia on the part of the Left.
    LikeDisagree 5 People
  • legalboxers
    The Constitution is what gives the LAWS to the PRESIDENT. Not visa-versa. They is suppose to be Republican and Democrats in office. They are 3 branches of government. And a bicameral government.

    Like-minded individuals who have an agenda or who were taught to, or told to believe something, on the guise of conning them into some nonfactual, "alternative facts" is wrong.
    Like 1 Person
  • rcm1ah
    I seen the one at jfk, it was pack and a complete mess.
    Like 1 Person
  • meowcow
    It remains to be seen, but I suspect Trump's ban is legal, even if it is unpopular.

    The argument that it is unconstitutional may not apply here for a couple reasons:

    1. An earlier take from a US policy analyst suggests that the immigration laws apply to immigrants, visa/passport holders and green card holders... but not refugees.

    2. POTUS and his decisions are given exemption from a number of laws that would otherwise apply. For example, many "conflict-of-interest" issues would prevent senators, congressmen and other politicians from certain positions. However, these do not apply to the president. It is however, common practice among past presidents to try to abide to the same laws and rules that apply to everyone else - but it is not mandatory. That being said, executive orders may overrule existing laws on immigration and discrimination.
    • sjoes006

      th ACLU is attacking it as a first amendment violation they purposely tried to skirt it by the drafting of the executive order specifying Countries not Muslims but Giuliani mentioned to the press how he advised on wording the ban so that it wouldn't fall under first amendment freedom from discrimination due to religion.

      All they have to prove is the intent was to target Muslims and Giuliani indicated that was the intent.

  • martyfellow
    Will be interesting, but I'll bet the Supreme court will defer to the Executive Branch's political judgment and let Trump get away with it.

    Is that San Francisco? I heard on the news a couple of hours ago that there were 1000 demonstrators at the AIRPORT. because of the ban on Iranians. I think mostly local US resident Iranians. Put together without much organization, mostly word of mouth, I imagine.

    I've never before heard of ANY demonstration at any airport!

    I doubt the courts will do anything more than slow things down. The sort of spontaneous organizing done for this airport demo WILL accomplish something if it can develop into ongoing actions.
    • sjoes006

      There were large demonstrations at several airports including O'hare and JFK large enough to shut down car traffic into the terminals and it certainly wasn't just Arabs. Many Arabs are scared.

      O'Hare had over a dozen attorneys show up to represent the detainees Pro Bono.

      Among those detained at O'Hare included a British citizen holding dual nationality and a US citizen whose mother was a national on a green card. Several were living here in green cards.

      It's a very sad day but I'm proud of my fellow citizens for their quick reaction.

      As for the courts. This is a mercky area of the law as we all saw with GTMO. Does the constitution apply to non US citizens?

      I actually really think this is going to put the court in a very difficult position. Public opinion is against this order. Congress needs 6 democratic senators to appoint the next Supreme Court justice. Things are getting ugly.

    • Especially when you take into account that Trump is going to determine the balance of the Supreme Court with his nominee this coming Thursday. More than that, however, because previous presidents including Jimmy Carter and most recently Barack Obama set the precedent for Donald Trump. In fact, the seven "Muslim majority" countries come not from Donald Trump but from Barack Obama's own Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. The order just continued this policy with the sole addition of Syria. There is no way this case will hold up in court. In fact, once the misinformation clears, I doubt it will even make it to court.

    • Much the same here in San Francisco. WE have a huge Iranian-American community so most of the demo consisted of Iranians, but also a lot of immigration attorneys! Even the state Attorney General was among the protesters though, and Sergey Brin the CEO of Google which is headquartered not far from the airport. An immigrant himself, not sure from where.

      LOADS of tech workers in the area are Indian Muslims. No wonder the CEOs of Apple and other big tech companies denounced Trump's move.

  • Iraqveteran666
    America has a long history of immigration control sof this is nothing new.
    Like 1 Person
  • JayGarrick
    Actually, by the constitution, only American citizens are protected by the American Constitution so the judges are wrong
  • Thisperson98
    The federal government has banned immigration from certain countries before.
    • sjoes006

      And black people used to be slaves. It doesn't mean enslaving someone is acceptable.

      You just solved the problem, let's put the in internment camps. We did it to the Japanese let's do it again.