Posted on 05/08/2017 9:07:12 AM PDT by xzins
President Trumps revised executive order, commonly referred to as the travel ban, will be reviewed by a federal appeals court on Monday afternoon.
The case, International Refugee Assistance v Trump, is centered on a battle between presidential authority and the rights of foreigners to travel to the United States. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia will decide if the travel order violates the First or Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution or the anti-discrimination section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Constitution does not usually apply to non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil. But a professor of immigration law at Fordham University Law School told Forbes that the First Amendments Establishment Clause does apply to the federal government. Im not arguing the Constitution gives each person a right to enter, said Jennifer Gordon. But when the U.S. government establishes a preferred religion, it violates the Constitution.
The plaintiffs say that the presidents order is blatant religious discrimination since the six countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
Refugee groups will find using the Fourteenth amendments Equal Protection clause much tougher. The clause states that No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. As the refugees are not within any states jurisdiction it will be difficult to argue that the clause applies to them.
The anti-discrimination section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will apply. But it will face direct opposition from its own language. The law, passed in 1952, contains a provision in section 212(f) laying out presidential authority.
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, 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. INA was amended in 1965 to add the anti-discrimination provision that reads, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the persons race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
The anti-discrimination provision was enacted later than the original INA so the doctrine of implied repeal may apply. When an Act of Congress conflicts with an earlier one, implied repeal dictates that the later prevails and the earlier is repealed. Implied repeal wont come into play unless the court is unable or unwilling to reconcile the two provisions with a reasonable interpretation.
The travel order will also be decided on in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at a later date.
Agreed.
It is extremely discerning that there are so many in our country who try to hinder Trump’s attempt to keep the nation safe from terrorism.
I read somewhere on FR that someone is going to sue over the new health plan if it becomes law.
That will be truly interesting, because the 9th circuit will probably strike it down.
You may want to think this through.
If immigrants aren't subject to our jurisdiction then they aren't subject to our laws - by definition.
All this legal maneuvering can be circumvented if we can designate Islam to be a political movement instead of a religion of peace. Best solution would be to reject it altogether.
My reading of the Constitution makes it clear the only gov entity that can try a sitting president for anything (High crimes and misdemeanors) including actions of a President while in office is Congress. Courts are preempted
“Roberts voted with the 4 liberals in a case about allowing states to sue banks...”
I was thinking about his vote on the ACA (obamacare) — Clearly the admin was holding something over his head.
Congress has authorized lower federal courts to have “concurrent jurisdiction” with the SC over cases such as a state vs. the Feds. This jurisdiction needs to be removed by Congress. Simply changing SC justices won’t solve the root of the problem.
Good point, but that’s how many act anyway. . .however, failing to observe our laws makes them subject to immediate deportation regardless of being a legal or illegal immigrant.
My point is no Artical 3 court can be above the other two branches - especially when the Constitution gives only congress the power to try a sitting President for all crimes and misdemeanors.
Don’t these Travelers(LOL) need a Visa anyway so no Visa no travel
It’s going to be broadcast on CSPAN at 1:30 CT.
The fines paid by the banks went to the very same community organizers that forced the banks to give risky loans to minorities to begin with.
I thought they were still letting the UN do the vetting. How do you extremely vet someone from a place like Syria anyway?
It is a political movement that uses religion as a means of subverting cultures.
The fact that this huge issues in Trump’s presidency is being heard right now as we speak on CSpan is reason to have it in breaking news.
I heard on Fox the other day that they are requiring 5 years of all social media used before they’ll give clearance.
I thought that was ingenious. It is extreme vetting.
Upholding Trump’s EO should be a slam dunk. It is blatantly, simplisticly OBVIOUS that the language of the 1st and 14th Amendments has nothing to do with foreign refugees outside of the United States. They are not under the “jurisdiction” of any state. Not to mention the clear constitutional authority of the POTUS to make unilateral decisions in this area....
So of course the libtards will find all sorts of convoluted trains of b.s. to try to make up NEW amendments that they wish had existed in place of the ones that actually do exist.
btw, even if it could be accepted that the EO in some ways disadvantaged foreign Muslims (even though it is directed at countries and not religion), that in no way could be a violation of the 1st Amendment which says that CONGRESS (no reference to the President) shall not ESTABLISH a national religion here in the USA. Disfavor abroad toward one of MANY religions in the world in no way establishes one particular religion here in the USA.
The libtards are always just making stuff up, out of whole cloth. Too often the courts let them do it as judges are too often happy to join in the fun.
Praying Trump finds favor with the judges..........In Jesus name Amen
I live in constant fear that Trump will deport my illegal alien ex-wife who lives at 23 N 32nd Street, New York NY. Third floor apt 311. She arrive home around 5 PM.</s >
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.