philbo wrote:And this is where your argument fails. The travel bans stated purpose was to achieve national security and foreign-policy goals. No doubt this is within the presidents power. The court agreed with those bringing suit that the policy, as implemented, unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of religion because it true purpose and or effect was to improperly targets Muslims. Alluding to Trump’s campaign call, tweets and subsequent public statements the Hawaii group said the policy “is the fulfillment of the president’s unconstitutional promise to enact a Muslim ban.” The court agreed at that time. Will it stand on review? Maybe, maybe not. It was the judges ruling, not mine.
Unconstitutionally discriminates "because it's true cause and effect..."? What basis in law and the Constitution does the judge have in this ruling? Answer, none. Aliens abroad have no legal right to enter the US. The Immigration and Naturalization Act states that the President can restrict any alien, nationality, or class of alien from entering the United States if he deems it in the national interest. There is no requirement in the law for him to justify himself, particularly not by parsing previous statements that are not a part of the law. Are we to believe that Congress has empowered the judiciary to intuit the personal opinions of government officials, that are not part of an official act or written order, nor contained in the language of the statute. If so, in what statute? Also, the First Amendment is silent on the rights of aliens abroad, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They have no more right to enter the US than they have to keep and bear arms, based on the Second. The "People" in the Constitution means the People of the United States in the United States or otherwise subject to it's jurisdiction. In some cases this can include lawful immigrants already present in the US, but not aliens abroad. And the lower courts' opinion (effectively) did NOT stand on review and was overruled by SCOTUS. It never should have made it to a hearing in any federal court, much less appellate court, but this is state of Constitutional illiteracy of (some of) the courts. The INA 1965 is a law laying out the rules and procedures for the granting of IMMIGRANT visas and the number thereof. It contains language specifying quotas for such visas and how such quotas are to be applied, but nowhere does it create a legal requirement for the Executive branch to issue a visa abroad for a given class of aliens, or create a judicially reviewable right of entry.
You have answered yourself.... the president can make any lawful order. Whose job is it to determine if the president is acting within the confines of the Constitution? Just some more obscure judges. In this instance the DC judge ruled that the plaintiffs had persuasive claims that their Fifth Amendment rights are being violated and have a good chance of succeeding in their court case. She noted, among other things, that the president's policy was announced with little apparent deliberation, "disfavors a class of historically persecuted and politically powerless individuals" and contradicts the conclusions of military leaders. She also wrote "the reasons given for [the directives] do not appear to be supported by any facts" — for instance, there is "practically no explanation at all" about how trans service members would harm "unit cohesion," she wrote. Once more a judge found the stated purpose of a policy did not match with it's true purpose and improperly impacted the constitutional rights of a specific group of people. She reached that conclusion in no small part based on the public statements of the man in charge. Again, will it be upheld? Maybe, maybe not.
So where in the Constitution or law does the court find the authority to prevent President from ordering the military to discharge military personnel who dress up as the opposite sex? Did I have a Constitutional right to wear a woman's uniform and grow my hair longer than allowed by regulation when an officer in the Navy. Did I have a right to take steroids or womens' hormones in contravention of regulations on prescription and other drug use? Where in the penumbra of emanations is this? The commander in chief is not required to provide an explanation for his lawful orders to inferior officers of the United States. If he said on the campaign trail or even in office that he thinks "trans" people are perverts and shouldn't be allowed in the armed forces, I fail to see how he is breaking the law. He didn't, and it may be bigoted, but there is currently no law protecting military members who are mentally ill (think they're the opposite sex than they are) from being discharged. It DOES hurt unit cohesion and good order and discipline, but this is irrelevant as the President is commander in chief. If you want to get Congress to pass a law giving free sex changes to military members, it needs to be taken through the legislative process.
philbo wrote:I will not address the hyperbolic example other than to pose a hypothetical... if the president can truly pass whatever law he wishes concerning the military, without intervention, can he segregate the us military forces tomorrow solely on the basis of color without violating the constitution?
To pretend that a persons public statements have no bearing on their beliefs, or whether a court is proscribed from viewing the presidents tweets to glean his true intentions is naive in the extreme. This is especially true when the president uses the medium for everything including firing his Secretary of State this week. But it's not what I believe, it's what the executive branch believes. “The president is the president of the United States, so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States,” Sean Spicer addressing the President's Tweets, June 5, 2017. The president has never refuted this position. Trumps worst enemy to his own policies has again and again been his own statements used against him. Say what you want about obama, bush, clinton, reagan, or even nixon... when they wanted to do something improper they didn't speak out against themselves in public.
No because the 14th amendment and federal civil rights LAW, prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. A Presidents public statements have NO bearing on the interpretation of a particular statute. His political statements are NOT official acts subject to review for compliance with the law. If he says I think we should tell the Army to get out all the whitey officers in a drunken midnight tweet, it might be despicable, but there is nothing illegal about it, until he (in an official act) orders the Army to do so. And yeah, I know he doesn't drink and I don't like all of his tweets, but I'll take them over Obama actually DOING illegal official acts and trying to obscure them, by "keeping quiet" unless caught on a hot mike.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"