Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules to reinstate key elements of Trump’s travel ban

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court rules to reinstate key elements of Trump’s travel ban

    The Trump administration just got a victory from the Supreme Court which decided on Monday to take key parts of the controversial travel ban and reinstatement them.

    SCOTUS also promised to hear full arguments on the ban sometime this fall. The ban is for six different Muslim-majority nations and was designed to both protect our country from potential jihadis coming over and carrying out attacks, as well as motivating these governments to take more action against terror groups.

    According to Fox News, The court’s decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration — the president’s order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a “travel ban.” The court made clear that a limited version of the policy can be enforced for now.

    An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

    The justices decided to review the broader constitutional issues over executive authority on immigration with oral arguments to be held in the fall.

    Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.
    “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?” Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.

    He added on Feb. 11: “Our legal system is broken!”

    In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order — which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.

    Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.

    This is good news for the administration and for the American people as it helps our nation to be more secure against the greatest threat to our safety and way of life: radical Islamic terrorism.

    Something has to be done, and soon, to put an end to this threat, and precautions like the travel ban are how we start to solve the problem.

    Source: BREAKING: Supreme Court rules to reinstate key elements of Trump's travel ban - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

  • #2
    Liberal judges should not have been allowed to interfere with the travel ban in the first place. That was an administrative matter but was allowed to become a legal issue. In fact, the travel ban does not go far enough to deal with the issue. However, it is a start in the right direction.
    Comment>

    • #3
      The part about any American with ties to people in those countries can come as refugees -- so How many Americans have ties to terrorists in those other countries? And how many of these 'ties' are going to be questioned before coming here. And how many 'refugees' are going to Start creating relationships with people in this country in order to gain access 'legally'.

      Yes, this legal system is broken.

      Lucas --you're right -- liberal judges should not have been allowed to interefer .... in the first place.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Sue D. View Post
        Lucas --you're right -- liberal judges should not have been allowed to interefer .... in the first place.
        I disagree, not about the liberal aspect, but our forefathers were knowledgeable enough to know what could happen and therefore placed checks and balances in the system.

        If this were a liberal president and conservative court system we'd see the genius of their precautionary measures.

        The fact that any liberal is a Judge I think would make our forefathers' roll over in their graves. To minimize and explain away the very constitution that protects the minority from the majority is anti-American. We're not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic. I wouldn't want to be in a true democracy where our lives are ruled by the majority vote.

        The United States government is modeled after the Presbyterian church government with all her checks and balances. Our fathers knew that men are sinful and that no (one party) true theocracy under God can exists without corruption by men.

        I think our forefathers were brilliant.

        God bless,
        William
        Comment>

        • #5
          I was just looking at your bio info -- you're in California -- another person I'd been conversing with is from England. I'd been comparing the two and getting confused.

          In spite of taking two Government courses while in college -- I still don't understand it -- the difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic. And I Pledge Allegience to Our flag with No problem. I just thought that the Pres. had authority Over the court system as far as the banning of the people coming over to this country from the questionable countries. And, yes, the checks and balances in the system, absolutely. Politics gets too complicated at times. This has been one of those times.

          They Were brilliant.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Sue D. View Post
            In spite of taking two Government courses while in college -- I still don't understand it -- the difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic.
            "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)

            How true does that ring Sue? Given our 20 Trillion dollars indebtedness and the snowflake entitlement mentality of our age?

            Originally posted by Sue D. View Post
            I just thought that the Pres. had authority Over the court system as far as the banning of the people coming over to this country from the questionable countries.
            It took Conservative Judges to rule constitutionally in his favor. :D

            Here is the pertinent law, Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182

            Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
            God bless,
            William
            Comment>

            • #7
              Thank you for including that law.

              Will admit that most of your quote by Sir Tytler went completely over my head. But the humongous indebtedness and the entitlement stuff -- I believe -- was enabled by a certain Pres. He barely got into office -- twice -- and Now the present Pres. is trying to do something about it. Seems like whatever he tries to do to Right a bad situation is going to result in a mess. But it would be a whole lot Worse, other-wise.
              Comment>

              • #8
                My biggest concern regarding the travel ban is that it was imposed by executive order rather than being a law passed by Congress. Just how much authority does the president have in issuing executive orders and when does the use of such orders make him a dictator rather than a president?
                Clyde Herrin's Blog
                Comment>
                Working...
                X
                Articles - News - SiteMap