Does the department or branch of govt. in question have to give you permission or can it given by another branch?Originally Posted by Loki
Does the department or branch of govt. in question have to give you permission or can it given by another branch?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1ddc85d7467c
So how about Jack Doresy do us the favor of banning Trump from twitter?Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey said in a tweet that the economic impact of the ban is "real and upsetting."
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/106
The way I understand it, the agency/organization being sued must provide the waiver.
Hope is the denial of reality
That would be a bit absurd and I don't think that's correct.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It makes sense to some extent if viewed as a means of preventing one branch of govt. from exerting undue influence on another branch. However, I didn't think this would cover unconstitutional acts and I also presumed there would be some statute on the books permitting citizens to sue the govt. under specific (and already defined) circumstances (rather than on a case-by-case basis). I understand now that this may not be such a situation but I expect there to be any immunity for potentially unconstitutional acts.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/h...vereign_21.pdf
Congress has apparently issued waivers in the past. From that piece, it's not clear what the limitations of those waivers are (it just say there are limitations).
We're talking financial damages here. You can sue the government for breaking the law/going against the constitution. If you win, the law/regulation is overturned. I'm sure Fuzzy can fill in on the specifics.
Hope is the denial of reality
In civil procedures?
Congratulations America
You don't punish the rank and file when there's a dispute between branches, Minx, I'm sorry you think that means the world is a shitty place. You know that the government CAN hold someone for 24 hours, even if they're represented by counsel right?
I'm wondering if it was deliberate. Bannon is a major figure and LOVES yellow journalism.
It's correct but. . . not quite complete. Authorities above the organization can waive it on behalf of the lower offices, and in this respect Congress is the highest authority. Bear in mind, this subtopic is about suing for damages. Injunctive relief is different.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Presumably that is why Trump used Obama's list of nations that Congress has passed to apply this to rather than writing his own list of Muslim nations.
Kind of surprised no one has properly called you on your bullshit so that's do that...
Congress passed a law that required interviews from countries of concern, at the time of passing the only 2 mentioned where Iraq and Syria. The department of Homeland security was in charge of maintaining that list, not Obama or the GOP controlled Congress when it reached 7 countries long. The law requires extra screening for visa applicants (an interview). It did not outright ban people because of their nationality.
Your source is utter crap as it appears to have failed to read it's main source, the Department of Homeland Security's main website. Your suggestion by repeatedly mentioning such a shit source (that you no doubt will backtrack or deny as you've finally been called on it) that the only 2 solutions are open and unrestricted vs no immigration is equally crap.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Schh, he needs to reach his daily quota of accusing liberals of double standards wrt Obama. It's one of those apple-a-day things
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm actually not entirely in agreement, OG. The DHS reports to POTUS, and it's not unlikely that for such a politically sensitive move, Obama would at least have been aware about the composition of the 'country of concern' list or whatever. I agree that the results of this list were not used to ban people from entering the country (certainly not visa holders!) but it's a little disingenuous to completely divorce the Obama administration from responsibility for the precise makeup of the list.
There are similarly some nuances wrt the claim circulating on the right about Obama's freeze on entry of Iraqi nationals back in 2011. I think it's really important that in our haste to denounce Trumps (vile, unwise, perhaps unconstitutional) actions we should not forget to leaven our criticisms with a healthy dose of reality.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Actually OG Khen has already falsely accused me of suggesting that Obama banned people from those nations (as far as I know he only banned Iraqi visa applicants for six months specifically). But then I never said that. As I said to Khen either show where I said that or apologise at your leisure. He's chosen to do neither so far I'm curious which you will go for.
These nations are the nations Obama had as countries of concern. Trump is using the list for dramatically different purposes but it is the same list of countries.
Your claim is still wrong and your source is crap. Congress did not pass a list of 7 "countries of concern." Again, as was already explained to you, the act congress passed and obama signed had 2 countries specifically mentioned. The maintenance of the list after that point fell on the department of homeland security.He's chosen to do neither so far I'm curious which you will go for.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't see a reason to apologize when you're distributing fake news, Rand.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Which reported to Obama. Congress and Obama authorised that list (while authorising the DHS which reported to Obama to maintain it) and Trump is using the list that Congress has authorised for his own purposes.
There's nothing fake other than your straw man.
And? This is about the same level of logic as:
Cop A: "These characters on this list might be a bit suspicious. Keep an eye on them!"
Cop B: "Now that Cop A is in retirement I'm issuing a Shoot-On-Sight-order for anyone on that list!"
And somehow now it's all Cop A's fault.
Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 01-30-2017 at 08:04 PM.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Who said it is all Obama's fault?
You did. By actually posting this stupid link and calling it interesting. Because exactly that narrative is used once again by the alt-right to vindicate Trump.
It does not matter in the slightest where your stupid list came from. In fact, given Trump's idiocy, it only figures that he isn't even capable of creating a list of his own.
You may now commence whining about how this is all a big misunderstanding.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It's not a misunderstanding it's you being an ignorant shit head making crap up. I never said it's Obama's fault and you've tacitly admitted as such by claiming the word interesting is the same as saying everything is Obama's fault which it clearly isn't.
Randblade apparently believes people on this board don't know what insinuation and innuendo look like.
"Of course I'm not saying Jeff was stealing from the office, but it's interesting he went home early that day, don't you think?"
Come on, man, we're not 11 years old.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
While this is getting better, and no where near the same as your original claim... I don't think you could have written this in a more managerial styleLeave it to your type to create a transitive property of taking credit for shit.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
https://twitter.com/katherinemiller/...72519216451584
Interesting report about the role of Sessions (if true).
Hope is the denial of reality
So whats worse, the guy who considers leading as a war against the populace, or the guy who incorrectly thinks the country loves him and is doing it for the ratings?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
At this point I honestly don't think he does it on purpose. It's become second nature.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
On another forum, a bunch of guys jumped very readily to the defense of Trump with the "But Obama!" list, cannot see anything wrong with Bannon and basically think that a three month ban isn't a problem at all. Don't care about international repercussions, and are completely and willfully ignorant of the plight of refugees. One of them said: "But we found that some have active tuberculosis!" As if that was a reason not to let them into a country where they could get proper help.
The views of those guys are pretty frightening because they display the same kind of idiocy our own Neonazis regularly display. Not to mention that their usual invocations of Christianity makes me nauseous.
I can only hope that this doesn't end with a smoking, irradiated crater some-/everywhere
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Bullshit. The reason the list of nations is relevant is as Aimless rightly pointed out yesterday because of the glaring omissions on the list. A smartly designed list to prevent terrorism attacks like Trump has claimed would not look like this:
Of course if we included European deaths in the list the image would be different.
One hope I would have had with Trump's hysteria over Muslims is that he could stop the long-standing American pandering of the House of Saud who well deserve a position in the "axis of evil" but are treated as allies not enemies. So far though they still seem to be avoiding any form of sanction.
Randblade. The Obama Administration list targets people who have travelled to those countries within those past few years (since March 2011). The Trump EO outright bans anyone who has citizenship with one of those countries, even if they left when they were 8 or something.
It makes a certain amount of sense to take a closer look have people who have recently travelled to a war zone where terrorist groups are highly active. It makes none to simply bar outright on the basis of citizenship, at least not if you motive is security rather than racism.
I want you know that your attempts to obfuscate and normalize what the Trump administration is up, and redirect the blame onto democrats are incredibly transparent and you should give them up immediately.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote