The Trump Presidency

Executive orders are consided law. She doesn't have any qualms about enforcing prohibition so I have serious doubts she cares about the constitutionality of the law she is supposed to enforce.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Executive orders are consided law. She doesn't have any qualms about enforcing prohibition so I have serious doubts she cares about the constitutionality of the law she is supposed to enforce.
Click to expand...

she swore to uphold the constitution

not follow orders like a subject

seriously cajun, we get it and most agree it needs to change but your constant way of pivoting to drugs is just getting tiresome and it is starting to look like you are trying not to address the topic instead of just coming out against something

but here are remarks she made in 2015 at Columbia law school on the topic since you just want to make her position to fit your agenda:

called the sentencing reform and corrections act – to address proportionality in sentencing, particularly for lower level, non-violent drug offenders. In short, we need to make sure that the punishment fits the crime. Last week, I had the privilege of testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the many promising pieces of that legislation.

And I know how badly we need reform. As the Deputy Attorney General, I oversee day-to-day operations for the Justice Department, which includes not just our nation’s federal prosecutors, but also the FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals Service and the federal prison system. I see all sides of our criminal justice system and I can tell you confidently: the status quo needs to change.

We need a new approach and we need a better approach. We need to be willing to step back, look at how we’ve managed criminal justice in the past and be willing to adjust our way of thinking.
Click to expand...
 
I am sorry if I go overboard with it. I have come to realize that this is where my passion is and I have decided to do something about it. I am going back to school and getting a law degree. I am going to form my own non profit organization dedicated to getting criminals with badges off the streets and into cages where they belong. I spend a lot of time researching and if I go into a random rant its probably me venting from what I am reading/seeing.

Its probably going to take 10 years for me to get a law degree but I think that will give some time for older judges whon grew up on reefer madness propoganda will die off or retire in those 10 years and I get the sense that public opinion is moving in the right direction. 10 more years and I think the water will be just right to dive in. I want to try something similar to the Tobacco lawsuits. People who purposely lie and deceive people about the effects of weed should be held financially responsible for the damage they caused. Their lies probably cost the government a trillion dollars to lock up non violent drug users. Not to mention the millions who were sexually assaulted and stripped of their basic freedoms. Over 100k mexicans have died due to the black market caussd by prohibition. I dont see it as any different than lying about the health effects of Tobacco.

As for Sally Yates, I am not impressed. She is only slightly less of a prohibitionist. Looking at her speeches and testimony linked on the DoJ site(most of which linked to.a blank page) she still wants to send drug users to prison, just for a shorter time. I got a newsflash fo her, cops "engaging" underserved communities is the problem not the solution.
 
A little good news:

16265545_282868838794818_674970917811808879_n.jpg
 
cajunrevenge said:
Executive orders are consided law. She doesn't have any qualms about enforcing prohibition so I have serious doubts she cares about the constitutionality of the law she is supposed to enforce.
Click to expand...

Executive orders aren't law when they're not powers afforded to the executive branch.
 
mqt said:
I don't actually have a problem with Trump firing Yates, but can the Trump Administration do just one thing without somehow giving off a 1984 vibe? She betrayed our country? Get the **** out, just give a short blurb about going in a different direction and move on.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
mqt said:
I don't actually have a problem with Trump firing Yates, but can the Trump Administration do just one thing without somehow giving off a 1984 vibe? She betrayed our country? Get the **** out, just give a short blurb about going in a different direction and move on.
Click to expand...
I recall now how about an hour after Trump issued the executive order on the ban, he declared that everything was going great. Nice try.
 
thethe said:
The executive branch has the authority to decline non citizens from entering the country.
Click to expand...

Nope. They're determined by congress. It's responsible for enforcing laws, but if congress doesn't pass a law for a muslim ban, there's no lawful power to an executive order.

For example. When Obama said that he wanted federal agents to deport less people, that's using the powers of the executive branch. Key wording in executive is execute, it's their job to enforce the laws, not make them or legislate them if you would
 
I feel silly arguing with people needing this explanation
Go read a book or two and see where else you are mis informed.

Even worse?
this is how we wound up with a President under the assumption he makes laws
 
"
United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1]

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
 
57Brave said:
"
United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1]

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
Click to expand...

I recognize that's one particular interpretation from one particular contributor to Wikipedia, but Article II can be read a number of different ways depending on context and precedent. History has demonstrated this.

For example, one might argue that this is an emergency power of the President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top