Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
This is exactly what I was talking about before. All your posts are like this. I still can't tell what your point is in this entire thread.
Why not just say it, in complete sentences, without links or sarcasm?
I'm actually pretty strong in reading comprehension. But I freely admit that when I read your posts, I can't comprehend them. I just don't think the problem is on my end.
It looks something like this:
5 U.S.C.
§ 706. Scope of review
To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall -
- (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
- (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be -
- (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
- (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
- (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
- (D) without observance of procedure required by law;
- (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
- (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.
Dear trolls, so who exactly has a standing in this case?
Trump guilty as charged for granting an extension until Cinco de Marzo - toady. Except - DACA is NOT and never was a law - only an Executive Order.
Trump can do whatever Executive Order he wants to - as an extension was pretty wise enough, and legal since Congress persons sit on their hands alot, don't they ?
Wise cracks intersperced because of the meme the Count wants to start up - I'll go over the top to show who is NOT reading that would be The Count -
every obtuse statement from him is kinda FUN-ny
as for Zippy interjection trying to interpret SCOTUS reliance on Circuit Courts to handle this . . . Zips bs needs to be confronted more.
Here , as in original OP
Dreams Deferred: A Look at DACA Renewals and Losses Post-March 5
On September 5, 2017, the Trump administration terminated the deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and permitted only a subset of current DACA recipients, whose protections were set to expire on or before March 5, 2018, to file renewal applications. Predictably, this action created a March 6 cliff, where the bulk of DACA-protected individuals would begin to lose status. At the time, President Donald Trump made clear that it was the responsibility of Coingress to pass legislation by March 5 to avert that crisis from unfolding. That has not happened.
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...-post-march-5/
as you must have missed . . .
"matters of policy must be determined by Congress, and court's task is not to fix policy but to interpret statute
and say what court thinks Congress intended it to mean. Volume 326 of Federal Reporter Second Series at page 172
Hundreds of cases to affirm that Courts can not be legislating policy.
Interpretation of the recent SCOTUS referral to the Circuit Courts is in such a misunderstanding here - I wonder why and who (?)
The arguments are abundant in a litany of Circuit Court cases . . . I am a slow typer sorta. More case law is promised , as available.
Ah, reading legalese gets like that - hard to follow for people I understand.
O'Brien case referenced early . . . Seinfeld episode with George Costanza as another O'Brien - kinda apropos (?) LOL
The Postmaster General case is interesting . . . and another Seinfeld episode comes to mind.
Point is : Article 3 has limitations . . . there is not "judicial review" of everything as asserted by some here on RPF again.
The Postmaster General has to be given deference for what stamps to issue - no not anything / or everything is allowed - pornographic stamps for instance.
Circuit Courts will overrule a lower Court decision that exceeds the Article 3 precedents of what is "judicial oversight" - not SCOTUS
Same/analogous is here with DACA Executive Order. A lower Court does not design policy - and it is not allowed to if it tries - definitely and certainly.
DACA cliff starts at midnight local time tonight. As stated in OP link.
Last edited by Jan2017; 03-05-2018 at 02:21 PM.
"Courts should not interfere in the operation of the government just because the particular judge disapproves
of the policy of the government, but, given the constitutional power to act, Congress is supreme in its legislative field,
and executive to whom certain powers are delegated subject to statutory standards, is supreme in the delegated field."
U.S. v. Big Bend Transit
42 F.Supp. 459 (US District Court for the State of Washington 1948) keynote Constitutional Law 70(1)
"One can not read the decisions of the Supreme Court in the last few years without fully concluding that it is the conviction
of that Court that courts should not interfere in the operation of Government just because the particular judge of the court
disapproves of the policy of the Government.
Given the constitutional power to act, Congress is supreme in its legislative field.
When Congress, in the exercise of its legislative judgment, delegates to an executive certain powers subject to the standards
provided in the Act, that executive is supreme in the delegated field.
It does not lie with the courts to interfere just because they dislike what was done.
The test of the correctness of the doctrine and its performance comes when the Court is compelled to accept it
to uphold acts of the Congress or of the executive of which the judge disapproves."
U.S. v. Big Bend Transit
42 F.Supp. 459, at page 475 (US District Court for the State of Washington 1948)
Last edited by Jan2017; 03-05-2018 at 01:13 PM.
The Baltimore Sun March 5, 2018 at 1:55pm ET
'Dreamers' deferred
The Washington Times - Monday, March 5, 2018
‘Dreamers’ turn ire on Democrats as DACA deadline passes
Trump's DACA deadline passes under legal cloud, with urgency dwindling in Congress
DACA deadline: Have Democrats abandoned Dreamers?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/05/trumps-daca-deadline-passes-under-legal-cloud-with-urgency-dwindling-in-congress.html
It's so weird that Trump's order ended up being compeletely beneficial for Trump--no blowback from his base and the Dreamers get to stay thanks to the injunction.
"Federal courts do not sit as councils of revision, empowered to rewrite legislation in accord with their own concepts
of prudent public policy, and only when literal construction of statute yields results so manifestly unreasonable
that they could not fairly be attributed to congressional design will exception to statutory language be judicially implied."
United States v. Rutherford, 99 S.Ct. 2470, 442 U.S. 544, 61 L.Ed.2d 68,(certiorari to Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 1979)
on remand at 616 F.2d. 455, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct.336, 449 U.S. 937, 66 L.Ed.2d 160
Last edited by Jan2017; 03-05-2018 at 02:03 PM.
What is weird really ?
The ill-conceived DACA Program is over for everyone as a first-timer applicant - base is happy.
So under Trump, Obamacare individual mandate is abolished, and DACA is done - put a fork in it.
The injunction is pretty lame in all regards acknowledging it is just a temporary band-aid . . .
The injunction does make fine target practice though:
Last edited by Jan2017; 03-05-2018 at 02:18 PM.
Trump's base wants the Dreamers deported--Trump doesn't.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
Yep, it's over for DACA first-timers . . .
deportation happens whether Trump wants it or not - it is the law, and deportation hearings happen everyday.
Good luck 'Schemers' !
If these recipients to the failed now abolished DACA program want to sleep well tonight comforted by the Northern District of California District Judge backing them as the light at the end of the tunnel - fine.
Tomorrow we can break the bad news to them that that light at the end of the tunnel . . . it is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/...ration-problemTrump also made E-Verify the center of his immigration speech. He said, “We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and we will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country.”
While preventing those here illegally from being able to gain employment may appeal to many who would like to protect American jobs, E-Verify is the worst possible solution. It is a police state non-solution, as it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive would result in financial disaster for millions of American families, as one would be forced to fight a faceless government bureaucracy to correct the mistake. Want to put TSA in charge of deciding if you are eligible to work?
The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government new authority over the rest of us. But in fact a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in search of a real problem.
How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.
There is no spoon.
The RP argument is not gonna have too much bearing for what the Supreme Court has already decided - this is a done DACA program.
SCOTUS was short and sweet - not an explanation of what is going down but the DACA gift-receivers WILL get the decision soon about the Eventual Path To Mexico program.
So, that would mean "DACA" becomes "EPTM"
Last edited by Jan2017; 03-05-2018 at 07:15 PM.
When the Circuit Court gets a case on appeal so disgusting against precedent from a District Judge with an agenda,
what do the Zips expect - that the Courts will legislate (?) a better Executive Order (?)
And the second half of my question to you is who . . . one of these on this list (?)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ArticleIII_Judges
or, - on this list :
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content...ior_judges.php
Last edited by Jan2017; 03-05-2018 at 07:41 PM.
Connect With Us