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

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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