President needs a judge's OK to issue an EO

that is up for the courts to decide, they may or may not agree with you...
my guess is like Obama case on DACA, this will be resolved before it gets that far

 

Both are required for threads on the current events forum

 

yes, not sure the government has ever promised so many people they would be safe from the government if they gave their names and their parents names before, this one will be tried in the courts, sure your right in the end, but wont matter as Congress will have resolved by then, so the courts will never rule on it

 

While this is not in dispute, the system is horribly broken if one rogue partisan judge can sabotage a President's agenda not because it breaks the law but because this judge disagrees with the "soundness" of the agenda.

Presidents and representatives are elected to ascertain the soundness of policies, judges' job is to enforce laws on the books .... one of these laws happens to be President's EO privilege.

 

PETA & SPCA won't tolerate the muzzling of liberal lap dogs.

 

Plenary power.

It's amazing the restraint Trump has shown.

 

What does this have to do with anything? The judge did not make a ruling based on any law. The president can issue Executive Orders and cancel Executive Orders. This has zero relevance to acting like a king or "doing anything he wants."

 

Well said.

 

How does a Judge saying Trump has the authority to end DACA but the Judge doesnt feel like he should follow the Constitution?

 

Are you saying that the judge claimed he doesn't have to follow the constitution?

 

Except this is about ending an EO. The judiciary has no place here, EO's unless being deemed illegal in implementation, must be allowed to end at the sitting president's behest.

I'm not worried though, this will end up in the Supreme Court, and they will rule DACA was unconstitutional to begin with, and then all those Dreamers will be screwed and they will have liberal judges to thank...

 

Partisanship blinds you as i fully expect a lawyer to be able to read a straightforward post and understand it.

“The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so,” wrote Judge Garaufis, a Clinton appointee to the court in New York. “Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so.”

Makes no sense outside of the Judge admitting Trump could end the EO BUT the Judge did not like his reasoning.

 

You are the one referencing the constitution then. The phrasing you used was odd, that is why I asked.

But his reasoning is sound. A President does have the authority to rescind an executive order, but when that executive order has conferred benefits and rights upon individuals and those people have exposed themselves to potential punishment (via deportation, no less) and act in reliance upon the rights and benefits conferred by the previous EO, then the President's ability to unilaterally rescind that Executive Order is limited. And it is limited - according to multiple judges now - by the President's ability to demonstrate legally adequate reasons for rescinding the order.

Something more than "I want to."

 

How about the original EO was not Consitutional to begin with.. I know the lefts answer is to pray the SOTUS never looks at this or so much time has passed that the dreamers can claim "Harm" and the legality be damned.

 

Why was the original EO unconstitutional?

I ask because I doubt you can tell me a valid justification given that the White House briefing before multiple judges has failed to elaborate or explain why the original EO was unconstitutional. You don't get to base your argument of unconstitutionality on the grounds, "I think it is unconstitutional."

 

I'm going by the man who implemented it into law himself.

https://www.speaker.gov/general/22-...dn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law

4 of those i believe were seen as out of context so 18 remain.

 

No...that is still not a reason for the EO to be considered unconstitutional.

 

Are you doubting Obama's knowledge on the topic? Hell a Judge held up the travel ban in part due to "tweets" are you saying there is a different standard now?

So a "Constitutional Scholar" who states that he does not have the authority to do something and does it anyways should not be considered?

 

I am not, but I am saying that his opinion - and particularly statements that are out of context - are not persuasive, let alone dispositive.

 

The quotes are in context perhaps try reading them.. They lay out his thoughts on the matter time and time again.. Yet he did it anyways.

 

Unless you can find me a quote wherein he said that DACA, as it was issued, is unconstitutional, I will continue to consider the quotes out of context.

And again, I will note that his opinion is not persuasive nor dispositive.

 

He repeatedly brought up Dreamers so try again...

 

So do you believe Obama was behaving like a king when he bypassed Congress to sign the original EO?

 

Yeah, that's horsepoop.
People can take an EO to court, but the judiciary has no power to require an EO undergo review before it can be issued.

 

Yes... but that's not the issue here.