The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
JohnWC
Veteran Expediter
What happens if you don't want your child going to a drug infested inner city school ( not saying that all inner city Schools are drug infested ) or being bussed across town or say what kind of lunch they have But if people want to take thier tax money that they spend towards school tax to send thier children to a private school they should BUT it's not that much if they want the goverment to pay for private school then they are crazy
A BAD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT WOULD RULE IN MY FAVOR
So, if these judges rule against him they won't even be "so called judges", they will be less intelligent than a bad high school student?
Sent from my hand-held Etch-A- Sketch
So, if these judges rule against him they won't even be "so called judges", they will be less intelligent than a bad high school student?
Sent from my hand-held Etch-A- Sketch
They won't be less intelligent, no. But they will be overstepping their authority for their own political ideals, as the law is clearly on the side of the President. Congress, (Legislative branch of government) unambiguously granted clear and sole authority to the President (Executive branch of government) to determine whether or not certain foreign nationals may enter the country if their entry would be detrimental to the interest of the United States. The Judicial branch of government does not have the authority to negate that.
(8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) reads, "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 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."
It's really that simple, and that should be enough, even for a bad high school student, but many people want to point to another law that shows the President can't do that, (8 U.S.C. § 1152 (a)(1)(A)), which states, "No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
A plain text reading of these two statutes suggests a conflict in the law. On one hand, Congress bars the visa discrimination on the basis of residence. On the other hand, Congress states that the President can bar "any class of aliens" for "such period as he shall deem necessary." People think that since 1152 was passed after 1182, that 1182 somehow becomes null and void. But that's not the case at all.
The Supreme Court has made very clear that courts "must read the [conflicting] statutes to give effect to each if [it] can do so while preserving their sense and purpose." And even though the residence limitation was passed after the presidential power statute, "repeals [of the prior law] by implication are not favored... and will not be found unless an intent to repeal is 'clear and manifest," according to the Court.
Since 1152 doesn't explicitly invalidate 1182, you can't assume 1152 merely implies that 1182 doesn't apply. They have to be considered together. Reading the two laws together would read more like: "No persons... Shall be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of... Place of residence" except where "the President finds that the entry... of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental."
On a side note, we have some new alternative facts that, for some unknown reason, aren't making the headlines in the mainstream media. Nancy Pelosi on Monday called a press conference to announce, "While it's only been a couple of weeks since the inauguration, we've seen nothing that I can work with President Bush on."
And at the same press conference Rep Maxine Waters (D-California) tells us that the Democrats should begin impeachment proceedings on Trump because, among other things, Trump is "wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea."
Maxine Waters thinks Russia is invading Korea, and Nancy Pelosi doesn't even know who the President is.
Question..... I understand that congress granted that power to the president.... Does the constitution give congress that authority?
Yes. Article I of the Constitution describes the design of the legislative branch of US Government - the Congress. It deals with the ideas including the separation of powers between branches of government (checks and balances), the election of Senators and Representatives, the process by which laws are made, and the powers that Congress has. Specifically, Article I Section 8 Clause 4 gives the Congress the authority "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..."
That only applies to citizenship, and not explicitly to immigration in general, however. The only place the Constitution explicitly mentions immigration is where it states that Congress has no power to limit the migration of slaves until 1808. But that left every other aspect of immigration up to Congress.
Congress has the explicit authority to make laws, and they've made laws giving the Executive branch authority over immigration. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the President has broad authority to determine who can come in and who can be kicked out. Part of that stems from, as the Court wrote, “The right to [include or exclude aliens] stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” The Court has ruled that immigration is a political, not judicial question, thus the power over immigration is reserved to the political branches of government.
In the first few decades after the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court took a leading role in determining how the immigration power would be allocated between the three branches of Government. In the end, the Court gave “plenary power” (which is absolute power) over immigration to Congress (and by extension, to the Executive,as Congress allows), in a judicially-created doctrine known as the “plenary power” doctrine. Although this concept is not found in the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Congress had the power to make immigration laws that were discriminatory and otherwise unfair. Later cases the Court has ruled this plenary power over immigration to be an inherent sovereign power, as it is with every other sovereign nation.
In the greater picture, the Court has ruled the constitutional provisions that provide specific federal power is to view them as indicative of an original intent to give the federal government (rather than the states) power over all immigration. Under this view, the Commerce, War, and Naturalization Clauses together imply a federal right to regulate non-citizens, according to the Court's own rulings. Rulings on those matters have shown that the federal government is the national government and therefore the keeper of the inherent sovereign power to regulate international affairs, and immigration falls under that scope. Since only Congress and the President have the constitutional authority to regulate international affairs, as well as War, Commerce and Naturalization, and the Court has none whatsoever, the Court really can't take it upon itself to overrule the the authority of the other two branches of government on matters of policy.
So, the President can only do what Congress has granted him the plenary power to do, and in the case of immigration, it's a really, really lot. The President literally has plenary power over immigration, within the scope of the statues mentioned above, 1182 and 1152.
Well you can do what I did, after suffering in the schools that I went to. I vowed my children would never have to deal with that. So I moved into a better school district, I wasn't fond of driving 20 miles each way to work, but all 3 of my daughters graduated and didn't have to deal with the hell I dealt with.
Vouchers are in principle a good idea but in the real world they will be used to siphon tax money away to greedy executives who have no desire to provide a proper education to our children.
The only way I wound be ok with this is if the law is written so that there are criminal charges against anyone caught gaming the system.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
That's exactly what has happened with many of the charter school in Michigan that DeVos has praised as a success. They take the money and then provide almost no education. Over the years the Detroit Free Press has almost made it a part of their mission to expose what is happening with charter schools, and they've done an excellent job of it.
The Weapons of Mass Deception website is run by a couple of community school educators who are all about real, actual education that is full of education and free from political BS (they do have their own political stance, to be sure, but their end game is honest education, not what we have now) They have a great graphic of what is going on with education in general, and charter schools in particular.
breaking news....at the newstands today The Globe reports and it must be true...
Sorry, seeing the Detroit Free Press as a source is a red flag for me here in Michigan. At least it deserves a rebuttal piece that scrutinized their work.That's exactly what has happened with many of the charter school in Michigan that DeVos has praised as a success. They take the money and then provide almost no education. Over the years the Detroit Free Press has almost made it a part of their mission to expose what is happening with charter schools, and they've done an excellent job of it.
The Weapons of Mass Deception website is run by a couple of community school educators who are all about real, actual education that is full of education and free from political BS (they do have their own political stance, to be sure, but their end game is honest education, not what we have now) They have a great graphic of what is going on with education in general, and charter schools in particular.
https://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MediaBullPen-Detroit11x17HyperlinkFinalSm.pdf
About the Media Bullpen | The Media Bullpen
As a SOLE source it should be a red flag for anybody. That's why I said they've almost made it part of their mission with regard to charter schools. If a newspaper has a mission of a particular issue, that kind of bias needs to be taken into account. But that doesn't mean their reporting is wrong, or even flawed.
By the same token, the Center for Education Reform, where that PDF comes from (Media Bullpen, which is funded by Bill Gates), is a propaganda-heavy special interest group dedicated to promoting charter schools. In the same way that the "Human Rights" part of the Human Rights Campaign's name is in actually nothing more than a different phrasing for "LGBTQ" Rights Campaign, The Center for Education Reform is simply another way to phrase "The Center for Charter Schools Promotion." They want to reform education, that's for certain, and they want to do it by getting as much tax money as possible for charter schools. Part of their mission statement includes "protecting and stimulating media coverage of education reform and issue advocacy."
Here's an article on the education "reformers" from 2012 that will shed some light on all of this.
Hired Guns on Astroturf: How to Buy and Sell School Reform | Dissent Magazine
I have nothing at all against charter schools, or any private schools, unless they get tax dollars for it. The government shouldn't be in the private education funding business, anymore than they should be in the abortion funding business.
JohnWC
Veteran Expediter
Maybe she'd heading to the country that donated to her campaignbreaking news....at the newstands today The Globe reports and it must be true...
In Ontario now you can direct your education tax dollars to the school board of choice...The Jewish school board fought the hardest for this...as the Catholic board was already getting some of the dollars..
same as directing your portion of union dues political party of your choice....
Sorry Turtle. Looks like the Jurists don't agree with your reasoning. Probably because they're too liberal and has nothing to do with THEIR take on Constitutional Law. Maybe President Trump can clear this up by Tweeting about the poor legal decision 
Sent from my hand-held Etch-A- Sketch
Sent from my hand-held Etch-A- Sketch
I would agree with that, primarily based on the fact that 68% of the judges on the 9th Court are Democrats, and the fact that the 9th Circuit is not merely the most overturned Circuit Court in the country, they are overturned an astounding 80% of the time.