Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So he signs an executive order and it directs policy .


And people set about implementing ( stopping people from 7 countries entering US ) or trying to implement ( replace Obamacare with something else ) and that carries on until a legal challenge is succesful ?


Can Congress intervene /block executive orders apart from approving a judicial review ?


I'm very confused and ignorant .

So 2 judges ( one in Brooklyn and one in Virginia ) have put a ?temporary stop to travellers from the 7 affected countries stuck in US airports from being deported .


So will stranded travellers in states where judges haven't taken this action be in danger of being deported ?

And those travellers who can no longer be deported but still cant enter US ....? Stranded at airport I guess until further developments .


I suppose they could change travel plans and fly out of US to somewhere else . If they had finances and somewhere else to go ????

You'll probably have seen the case mentioned on the BBC website of the young woman studying veterinary medicine at Glasgow. She has an Iranian passport and went on holiday to Costa Rica with her boyfriend. Now they're not allowed to board the plane home because the flight goes via the US. Buying new tickets via Madrid will cost ?2600 which they can ill afford.


As I understand it the judges are reacting to the individual situations that this executive order have created - not the 'constitutionality' of that order.

ah ,yes that makes sense jenny .


I wonder how the constitutional aspect could be challenged - congress agreeing to a judicial review ? Which would mean Republicans breaking ranks ? Which I guess it's a little early for ?

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ah ,yes that makes sense jenny .

>

> I wonder how the constitutional aspect could be

> challenged - congress agreeing to a judicial

> review ? Which would mean Republicans breaking

> ranks ? Which I guess it's a little early for ?


The US constitution is going to be very important over the next few months to keep Trump in line, but AFAIK the constitution offers no protection to non-US people, unless they are on US soil. So the judge can step in to deal with people being held at US airports, but cannot make any judgement on the wider policy.

There was this attempt, after a House of Representatives vote, to sue Obama in 2014 over Obamacare. I don't know its outcome but it seems to have been regarded as an oddball action: "Legal scholars have questioned whether any member of Congress can prove injury by the president and therefore prevail in court." https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/politics/house-votes-along-party-lines-to-sue-obama.html. The conventional Congressional remedy would seem to be counter-legislation. WikiP:ExecutiveOrder:Legal conflicts.


Current lawsuits are summarised in Wikipedia at Darweesh_v._Trump. The main article for the shemozzle seems to be Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

That's very helpful ianr. So the case being currently brought by the American Civil Liberties Union is based on the fact that the executive order is in breach of a number of pieces of existing legislation including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. I'm no legal expert - but given what Trump has said the ACLU case appears unarguably strong, making the executive order illegal.


I wonder if the legal process will have to 'play out' or if Trump will be persuaded to climb down before that happens.

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There was this attempt, after a House of Representatives vote, to sue Obama in 2014 over

> Obamacare. I don't know its outcome but it seems to have been regarded as an oddball action: "Legal

> scholars have questioned whether any member of Congress can prove injury by the president and

> therefore prevail in court."


A curious thing to say. They weren't suing on the basis of injury. They were suing on the basis he exceeded the executive powers. Incidentally, they won.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28554842


... which also has nice summary of the executive orders.

Thanks for the links ianr - as said ,v helpful .


and I'm glad to read this


"Prime Minister Theresa May has told her foreign secretary and home secretary to contact their US counterparts about a travel ban imposed by President Trump.

Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd will make representations about the order barring refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim majority countries for 90 days.

Earlier Mr Johnson tweeted it was "divisive and wrong" to stigmatise people on the basis of nationality."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38789821

> A curious thing to say. They weren't suing on the basis of injury. They were suing

> on the basis he exceeded the executive powers. Incidentally, they won.


In Judge Collyer's own words in her 12/5/16 judgment: "The House?s injury depends on the Constitution and not on the U.S. Code." The notion of justiciable injury seems to be deemed relevant. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1967-73


The executive appeal against that judgment seems to be still pending. The latest I've found, http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/12/29/rapid-developments-in-house-v-burwell/, gets us to the beginning of this month.


There's an overview at wikip:United_States_House_of_Representatives_v._Burwell

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for the links ianr - as said ,v helpful .

>

> and I'm glad to read this

>

> "Prime Minister Theresa May has told her foreign

> secretary and home secretary to contact their US

> counterparts about a travel ban imposed by

> President Trump.

> Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd will make

> representations about the order barring refugees

> and visa holders from seven Muslim majority

> countries for 90 days.

> Earlier Mr Johnson tweeted it was "divisive and

> wrong" to stigmatise people on the basis of

> nationality."

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38789821


Good for her. Strangely, this is not what she said when asked for her own opinion in Turkey. But I guess that wisdom comes late in the day for us all.

It basically seems to apply to everyone with certain nationalities or traveling from certain countries BUT after clarification was sought by our Foreign Secretary it does not appear to include British citizens with dual nationality or traveling from those countries on Trump's list (so a case of "we're okay").


Utter hateful nonsense.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mo Farah and family are very welcome back in the

> UK. We would give them a nice homecoming,


As he moved away for tax reasons, I don't think we should welcome him at all.

"As he moved away for tax reasons, I don't think we should welcome him at all."


I don't think that's right. He's been effectively living in the US for some time, and (as I understand) spends more than half the year there, and so is liable to US tax on all his income, wherever it arises. An easy way to avoid double taxation (at least on income arising in the UK) is to be non-resident in the UK, but that's just recognising the reality i.e. he is resident in the US.

I've just read this https://www.justsecurity.org/36960/stock-weekends-district-court-orders-immigration-eo/ which details the legal challenges to date .


Whatever the status/constitutionality of this EO it does seem to have been administered in a way which left the officials on the ground confused as to how to implement the new policy . I wonder if Trump wanted maximum chaos to publicise his actions or if he simply didn't understand the need to consult and iron out the details before he tried to bring this in ?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Just to warn anyone thinking of employing or engaging Chris and Anna Richmond, that nothing has changed.  The accounts above from others are all too familiar.  A job that we were told would take between 6-8 months is now entering its 23rd month.  They have taken enormous amounts of money from us, finished nothing, and the quality of the work that they have delivered is poor to substandard.  They take no responsibility themselves - there are endless excuses and everything is someone else's fault.  They do not care about the impact that their actions have on anyone else.   They are, at best, chaotic. They have not delivered as the designers or project managers that they claim to be. They are rarely on site to monitor the progress or quality of the job that is being delivered and they and manage their largely non-English speaking workforce by WhatsApp and Google translate.  There has been little evidence that they employ the skilled tradespeople needed to lay tiles, install bathrooms and kitchens, decorate and complete to the standard that we have paid for.  I cannot stress enough, that if you are currently in discussion with Anna and Chris Richmond about a future job or have paid them money up front for a job that they have slipped in delivering, to quit while you are ahead.  Things won't get better.
    • Hi All, I’d like to recommend Aaron Manser, who several others on this forum have also used. Aaron is an excellent plasterer, and has just finished a complicated piece of plastering work for me, including a large expanse of ceiling. His work has been of the highest quality, his attention to detail is exceptional, and he’s also very quick, and tidy too. As an added bonus he has a lovely singing voice. Happy to provide any photos of the work he has done. This is the third time over the past few years I’ve had Aaron back. Aaron Manser - 07773 410661 Regards, Damien
    • I really have to smile as I was the one, years ago who posted about what Gala was.. had not a clue, but drove and drive regularly. Felt such a fool at the time but wow, years later post still comes up.. with comments. Still don’t understand why a lot of park is cordoned off and glad not a resident overlooking park.. must be so noisy but now dates have been kindly supplied, those that don’t want to chill and listen to music in their flats/houses can up sticks and explore UK or abroad. Totally understand that in a built up area and millions in London, music events take place all over the capital to allow access to all.  Brockwell  Park, Dulwich Park, don’t hear anything going on in or around Telegraph Hill or indeed Horniman Gardens.. Crystal Palace I believe do their own thing.  Do these events , clearly charge, provide their own insurance, public liability, crowd control, first aiders, security and policing? Rubbish clearance etc  
    • Personally I think the second weekend has always been a tactical ploy with no real intention of going ahead with it. The council then turn it down (saying they have listened to us, which of course they haven’t) and announce that they will only license one weekend. GALA get the result that they want - job done. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the council even suggested this ploy, they are so desperate to keep the event.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...