Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
How Do These Presedential Executive Powers Work?
31 Answers
Leaving aside the subject matter why are the US courts able to overturn the Presidents executive orders? I mean either he has the power or he does not, so how does it work? I have googled but I cannot find an explanation. Thanks.
Answers
I need to understand more but presumably in this case it's related to the President's role and responsibility to uphold the Constitution. Thus, an executive order that is either deemed unconstitutional or, in this case, deemed *possibly* unconstitutional, then it can't be enforced. To take a more extreme example, a president couldn't sign an executive order to abolish voting rights, or the right to keep and bear arms (although Congress, Presidents, and the States combined could amend the constitution).
Its all here TTT !
https:/
Yes, very dodgy which is why he is loosing the battle with the ban on Muslims.
https:/
Yes, very dodgy which is why he is loosing the battle with the ban on Muslims.
"...which is why he is loosing the battle with the ban on Muslims."
He isn't banning Muslims, Mikey. He's banning (or attempting to ban) people with the citizenship of seven individual nations which happen to have a predominantly Muslim population. Not all Muslims are terrorists but almost all terror related atrocities in recent years seem to have been committed by Muslims. Mr Trump recognises that fact (which other politicians seem unwilling or unable to accept). His advisors have identified where the hotbeds of terror appear to be and have advised Mr Trump that it might be an idea to temporarily restrict admission to the US of people from those countries until a more robust vetting procedure can be implemented.
Don't misunderstand me. I have no particular brief for Mr Trump one way or the other and I don't particularly care what he does provided it does not adversely affect the UK. But he's not simply "banning Muslims". Having said that, I'd have no argument with him if he did.
He isn't banning Muslims, Mikey. He's banning (or attempting to ban) people with the citizenship of seven individual nations which happen to have a predominantly Muslim population. Not all Muslims are terrorists but almost all terror related atrocities in recent years seem to have been committed by Muslims. Mr Trump recognises that fact (which other politicians seem unwilling or unable to accept). His advisors have identified where the hotbeds of terror appear to be and have advised Mr Trump that it might be an idea to temporarily restrict admission to the US of people from those countries until a more robust vetting procedure can be implemented.
Don't misunderstand me. I have no particular brief for Mr Trump one way or the other and I don't particularly care what he does provided it does not adversely affect the UK. But he's not simply "banning Muslims". Having said that, I'd have no argument with him if he did.
The last word I would use to describe you New Judge is credulous, but do you really think that that he isn't banning Muslims ?
Really ?
He said on countless occasions last year, that as well as building a wall, he was going to ban all Muslims from America....I heard him with my own ears.
And its backfired on him for being unconstitutional. He has been caught on the back foot here, and made to look foolish and amateurish into the bargain.
A man promoted way above his pay abilities.
Really ?
He said on countless occasions last year, that as well as building a wall, he was going to ban all Muslims from America....I heard him with my own ears.
And its backfired on him for being unconstitutional. He has been caught on the back foot here, and made to look foolish and amateurish into the bargain.
A man promoted way above his pay abilities.
http://
An interesting piece.
An interesting piece.
I don't think the decision is anything to do with the "Muslim Ban" element of complaints against this Executive Order. Seems to be more to do with the perceived damages caused to the States -- from loss of freedom to travel to the residents of the States, along with "employment, education, business, family relations... as well as injury to the States' operations, tax bases, and public funds."
https:/
Sure, it's a badly-targeted order (as has been pointed out more than a few times, terrorist attacks against the US have exclusively come from other countries) and can be perceived as religious discrimination, but -- for the moment at least -- this is not the problem with Trump's EO.
https:/
Sure, it's a badly-targeted order (as has been pointed out more than a few times, terrorist attacks against the US have exclusively come from other countries) and can be perceived as religious discrimination, but -- for the moment at least -- this is not the problem with Trump's EO.
In that Express article there is possibly one of the worst defending of a supposed world leader I've ever read:
'He and his team are learning the art of governing. Though the executive order banning travel from certain destabilised Muslim-majority countries has misfired, the principle behind the order is surely not in itself wrong.'
Do the American people deserve a leader who doesn't know the rules from the get-go?
'He and his team are learning the art of governing. Though the executive order banning travel from certain destabilised Muslim-majority countries has misfired, the principle behind the order is surely not in itself wrong.'
Do the American people deserve a leader who doesn't know the rules from the get-go?
I think you misunderstand me Mikey.
I perfectly accept that Mr Trump's failed ban is intended to prevent some Muslims from entering the US. I make no bones about it but I don't have to. Mr Trump has to try to make it more palatable by implying that it is not based on religion. But it is. There's nothing wrong with that. He accepts that most of the atrocities across the world recently have been perpetrated by Muslims. He sees that preventing Muslims entering the US will lessen the risk to US citizens. I happen to think he is wrong but once again it is not what I think that matters.
I perfectly accept that Mr Trump's failed ban is intended to prevent some Muslims from entering the US. I make no bones about it but I don't have to. Mr Trump has to try to make it more palatable by implying that it is not based on religion. But it is. There's nothing wrong with that. He accepts that most of the atrocities across the world recently have been perpetrated by Muslims. He sees that preventing Muslims entering the US will lessen the risk to US citizens. I happen to think he is wrong but once again it is not what I think that matters.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Technology11 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.