President Trump

[brianscharp]

It turns out that Robin Marien failed - in court - to provide any justification to keep me from being or flying at Torrey Pines.

Yeah, just like #45, his arrogance/ignorance probably led him to believe he was beyond review.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... el-ban.pdf

Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one. There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.

And just like Robin Marien, #45 also failed to provide justification.

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.

With few exceptions, one being Robin may actually pay taxes, these are two rotten peas in a pod.

[Bob Kuczewski]

even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.

What rights and protections does the U.S. Constitution grant to non-US citizens living in other countries?

Why does 8 USC 1182 (below) not apply?

   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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.

That seems very clear to me. What might I be missing?

[brianscharp]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 76fb4035b0

The three judges unanimously concluded that the Washington and the other states suing the president have standing to file the case, and that are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their claim that the order violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The former decision eliminates a possible procedural obstacle to the lawsuit. The latter signals that the states are likely to win on this issue in future proceedings when the court does in fact reach the merits.

It is also extremely important that the court rejected Trump’s position that the president’s decisions on immigration and national security policy matters are exempt from judicial review. As the ruling notes, “federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of — and even invalidate — actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict [citations to numerous cases omitted].” They further emphasized that “although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” This is a clear rejection of claims that the so-called “plenary power” doctrine completely exempts immigration policy decisions from the limitations of constitutional rights that constrain other government policies. It reinforces my view that the plenary power doctrine, while certainly still on the books, is not as robust and comprehensive as some defenders of it claim. I certaily do not expect this case to result in the complete abolition of the doctrine, though I would welcome such an outcome. But it might potentially end up enforcing some meaningful limits on it.

The court’s ruling on standing also deserves some discussion. The doctrine of standing requires plaintiffs to prove that they are likely to suffer some kind of material injury before they can challenge a government action in federal court. The Ninth Circuit concludes that the plaintiff states have a sufficient injury because, among other things, the order would bar the entry of some students and employees at their state universities.

That may be only a small harm to the states. But many precedents indicate that a small injury is enough. The Ninth Circuit correctly points out that the injuries claimed by the states in this case are comparable to those claimed by Texas and other conservative states in their lawsuit challenging President Obama’s executive action on immigration, where the states got standing on the ground that they might end up bearing administrative costs from issuing drivers’ license to the immigrants in question. They got it despite the fact that the injury was likely to be small, and could even potentially be avoided by changing the states’ licensing policies. Although I opposed the Texas lawsuit on the merits, I argued at the time that the conservative states were entitled to standing. The same goes for the liberal states suing in this case.

[Bob Kuczewski]

even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.

What rights and protections does the U.S. Constitution grant to non-US citizens living in other countries?

That question is still outstanding.

Also, I've seen no explanation why 8 USC 1182 (below) doesn't apply.

   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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.

The 9th circuit's decision reminds me of:

- David Jebb banning Dave Beardslee and myself
     ... with no justification and no written reason given.

- USHPA saying I couldn't use my title as Regional Director
     ... even though their SOP's stated otherwise.

- The City of San Diego agreeing to create an Advisory Board
     ... but creating a temporary Citzens' Committee.

- USHPA expelling me after my expert testimony
     ... without citing a single SOP, bylaw, or safety rule.

- USHPA refusing to renew the Torrey Hawks
     ... without citing a single reason.

- The San Diego Police and Robin Marien jailing me 3 times
     ... without ever showing up in court with charges.

- Robin Marien filing a workplace violence restraining order
     ... with no violence, threats of violence, or justification.

In other words, it reminds me of people doing whatever they want with no basis in fact, and with complete disregard for established laws and precedents.

[brianscharp]

What rights and protections does the U.S. Constitution grant to non-US citizens living in other countries?

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/c ... ext=facpub
1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
[Vol. 25:367

The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between
the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily
denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective
office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however,
are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees
extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials,
including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance
of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply
to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections
of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's
protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."
The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the
rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that
they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."13 For more
than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection
Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within
the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ...
nationality."14 The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due
Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States,
including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent."15 When noncitizens, no matter what
their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the
rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction
based on their nationality.16

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... d=1789185##

Accordingly, there are few examples where the Supreme Court has cleanly upheld immigration discrimination on grounds which would be clearly impermissible under domestic constitutional law.

Due process was denied legal green-card holders.

Also, I've seen no explanation why 8 USC 1182 (below) doesn't apply.

There was no evidence provided for it.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for your research efforts, but so far all of your evidence is quotes of other people's opinions. Constitutionally protected rights should be in the constitution itself. Legal rights should be in the law itself.

Any controversial issue will be surrounded with swirling clouds of arguments from all sides. Finding the truth requires cutting through the clouds of opinion to get to the facts. That's why I provided the full text of 8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f). I believe (until shown evidence to the contrary) that that portion of the law gives President Trump the authority for his executive order. There may be some fine points that will benefit from further clarification, but I believe the substantive portion of the order is on solid legal ground. So far you haven't provided anything (other than opinion) that contradicts that very clear and concise law.

What rights and protections does the U.S. Constitution grant to non-US citizens living in other countries?

Let me help with this one. The US Constitution doesn't grant any rights to non-US citizens living in other countries. The US Constitution guarantees rights to US citizens and arguably to non-citizens within our borders. It does not grant any rights to non-citizens outside of our borders. Indeed, our country (and our Presidents) are often accused of "imperialism" whenever we try to impose our standards on people outside our borders.

[brianscharp]

Thanks for your research efforts, but so far all of your evidence is quotes of other people's opininions. A constitutionally protected right should be in the constitution itself. Any legal rights should be in the law itself.

Yeah but those opinions are based on previous rulings.

Any controversial issue will be surrounded with swirling clouds of arguments from all sides. Finding the truth requires cutting through the cloud of opinion to get to the facts.

And who's better equipped to do that than the courts?

There may be some fine points that will benefit from further clarification, but I believe the substantive portion of the order is on solid legal ground.

We'll see.

[Bill Cummings]

It is my understanding (not as in, stand under, but what I feel is correct.) that the US Constitution doesn't grant rights it only guarantees that no tyrants in power have the authority to take away our rights that all have just by existing.
Correct me if I'm wrong but we all have these rights with or without any government.

[Bob Kuczewski]

... rights that all have just by existing.

That understanding is well supported by wording like:

      "endowed by their Creator with certian unalienable Rights"

found in the Declaration of Independence. It's interesting to note that both "Creator" and "Rights" were upper case in that sentence. The use of upper case for "Creator" follows a long standing tradition. But using upper case for "Rights" expresses a special significance for that word.

[brianscharp]

For our discussion the definition of "all men", with which the Creator has chosen to endow those unalienable Rights, becomes important.
http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/08/29/jar ... -nonsense/

On Monday night’s “The Alan Colmes Show”, white nationalist and alt-right movement supporter Jared Taylor spoke with Alan about the movement and its ideologies. Stating that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump know much about the alt-right movement, Taylor did in fact throw his support behind Donald Trump for president, since he is “vastly superior” to Hillary Clinton.

Firmly stating that he prefers a “homogeneous white environment”, Taylor believes that stereotypes reflect reality. In his own words, “black and white cultures are not interchangeable”. Taylor also believes that there should be a religious test to get into this country, “especially for Muslims”. He is also a firm believer that not all men are actually created equally, and calls that notion “nonsense”. In regards to the current state of the country, Taylor believes that “we only have a black president now because of immigration policies”.