Tornicade
2018 RBF League Champion
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 17,542
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Points
- 123
his is incorrect. it became something necessary for the courts to regulate when the 14th amendment too the ability to grant US citizenship from the states.
Meaning someone has to protect the states interest from the federal government.
Also a declaration by the president should be subject to judicial review. . it is a big difference than congress passing or enacting the law. it a presidents interpretation of law and setting policy to it.
In addition the scope of the immigration changes by the executive order doesn't just impact people immigrating into the country going forward. it also targets State residents . the States rights should be protected here.
Your saying that the Court has no business to overturn an unlawful Executive order. This simply isn't True. The court decided the verbiage discriminated against religions.
First off . The court Rules that the state of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota had a right to sue in the matter because their Residents were impacted.
Kendall Coffey, who was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida under President Bill Clinton, said the panel’s opinion “strongly suggests that a narrower executive action would have been sustained. The ban on lawful permanent residents was found to be a clear violation of due process.”
The states showed their residents would be harmed if the ban was reinstituted while the Government failed to show the urgency of having a ban in place.
“These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms,” the judges said. They declined to recognize a White House clarification that the ban doesn’t apply to green-card holders from the seven countries who are legally in the U.S. but feared they wouldn’t be allowed to return if they traveled abroad, citing “the government’s shifting interpretations of the executive order.”
They dismissed the claim that the order had already been amended to afford green card holders due process because the source of the revision was “authoritative guidance” from White House counsel David McGahn. “The White House counsel is not the president, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the executive departments,” the judges said.
It was a clumsily put togeth executive order open to interpretation and
negatively impacted select legal residents of multiple states.
and while this court did not condsider the discriminatory aspects of the ban detailed scrutiny of the vetting and actual impact of the order would be found to religious discrimination.
You say the states have no legal recourse on white house policy changes that impact their citizens.. that simply not the case.
Meaning someone has to protect the states interest from the federal government.
Also a declaration by the president should be subject to judicial review. . it is a big difference than congress passing or enacting the law. it a presidents interpretation of law and setting policy to it.
In addition the scope of the immigration changes by the executive order doesn't just impact people immigrating into the country going forward. it also targets State residents . the States rights should be protected here.
Your saying that the Court has no business to overturn an unlawful Executive order. This simply isn't True. The court decided the verbiage discriminated against religions.
First off . The court Rules that the state of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota had a right to sue in the matter because their Residents were impacted.
Kendall Coffey, who was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida under President Bill Clinton, said the panel’s opinion “strongly suggests that a narrower executive action would have been sustained. The ban on lawful permanent residents was found to be a clear violation of due process.”
The states showed their residents would be harmed if the ban was reinstituted while the Government failed to show the urgency of having a ban in place.
“These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms,” the judges said. They declined to recognize a White House clarification that the ban doesn’t apply to green-card holders from the seven countries who are legally in the U.S. but feared they wouldn’t be allowed to return if they traveled abroad, citing “the government’s shifting interpretations of the executive order.”
They dismissed the claim that the order had already been amended to afford green card holders due process because the source of the revision was “authoritative guidance” from White House counsel David McGahn. “The White House counsel is not the president, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the executive departments,” the judges said.
It was a clumsily put togeth executive order open to interpretation and
negatively impacted select legal residents of multiple states.
and while this court did not condsider the discriminatory aspects of the ban detailed scrutiny of the vetting and actual impact of the order would be found to religious discrimination.
You say the states have no legal recourse on white house policy changes that impact their citizens.. that simply not the case.
