This is amusing, except that some people will actually believe the AP version of the US Constitution.
When a federal judge shot down a Trump administration policy of holding immigrants without bond last December, it seemed like a serious blow to the president's mass deportation effort.
Instead, a top Justice Department official insisted the ruling wasn't binding, and the administration continued denying detainees around the country a chance for release.
By February, the district court judge, Sunshine Sykes, was fed up. Sykes, a nominee of President Joe Biden, accused Trump officials in a ruling that month of seeking “to erode any semblance of separation of powers,” adding that they could “only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist.”...
Dear Sunshine:
Article Two, Sentence One of the US Constitution gives the President ALL executive (managerial) powers regarding immigration policy. ALL of them.
By the way, Article Three gives the Courts ZERO executive (managerial) powers over immigration policy.
This is a POLICY issue, not a legislative issue. And it most certainly is NOT a judicial issue.
You can try blowing Sunshine up anyone's ass, honey. But not anyone who has read the Constitution.
5 comments:
The propaganda is all Dad29.
While the President has broad managerial authority over immigration enforcement under Article II, plenary power over immigration policy belongs to Congress, not the President.
Additionally, federal courts (Article III) hold significant power to review executive actions for legality.
Article II, Section 1 vests "executive Power" in the President, but this is not an absolute, limitless grant of authority. Congress holds the plenary power to make immigration laws and rules of naturalization. The President’s power is largely derived from authority delegated by Congress through statutes like the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Now, the President has high discretion regarding enforcement—such as setting priorities for deportation and managing the border, and the Courts do not possess executive or "managerial" power.
However, Article III courts hold the power of judicial review, meaning they determine if the executive branch has acted within the scope of authority granted by Congress and the Constitution. So Courts can (and often do) strike down executive immigration actions that violate the law, the Constitution, or statutory authority.
In summary…
The President has vast, but not absolute, discretion regarding immigration enforcement.
The President cannot ignore or bypass federal immigration laws enacted by Congress.
The courts are the final arbiters of whether the executive branch’s actions are lawful.
Nice wall of irrelevancies there!!
The matter at issue is whether a Presidential EO can be revoked or modified by another Presidential EO. Common sense--rarely a property of Article III appointees--says "OF COURSE."
“Nice wall of irrelevancies there!!”
This is your typical response when you know you are wrong.
“The matter at issue is whether a Presidential EO can be revoked or modified by another Presidential EO”.
They can. But executive orders are also subject to Supreme Court oversight and judicial review.
So what?
Trump has never challenged a black-letter position, and he has won the vast majority of the cases which have been tried. In contrast, Inferior Blackrobes have lost the vast majority of their cases on appeal.
AP writes propaganda, or perhaps more accurately, they print the memos handed to them by the (wrong-side) lawyers.
You still didn’t address the cogent points that were made. Sad.
Post a Comment