Monday, March 6, 2017

[U] I Have Read The "New" Executive Order. It Is A Dead Letter. Period.

Well. . . over some delicious miso soup and sashimi, at lunch -- it took me all of five minutes to read -- and re-read -- the "new" order.

The problem 45 faces is. . . simply insurmountable. His own very public statements, along with (notably) those of Rudy Giuliani cannot be washed away. They are powerful evidence of a violation of the First, and Fourteenth, Amendments. Once "rung" -- in the poetic language of the Supremes -- that bell cannot be "unrung". Mr. Trump, verbatim, then:

. . . .December 7, 2015: We will have a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. . . .

That is the evidence -- and no amount of lipstick on this pig will. . . suffice.

The "Three Day Condor" predicts this new order will suffer the same fate as the first one. And that will be. . . a victory for our federalized (republic) system of checks and balances, for the US Constitution, for our democracy, and ordered liberty. More than 240 years of US history hangs in the balance here -- these are momentous times, indeed. But ones the founders left us well-equipped to address. Thank you, Messrs. Hamilton and Jefferson -- and countless others. . . .


UPDATED @ 3:10 PM EST: The administration has already filed papers in at least three federal courts on both coasts, arguing that those courts should let the New Muslim Ban go into effect on March 16, 2017, thus: "...Rather, the Order applies only to those who are overseas and without a visa. That grouping presents the highest concern with respect to the adequacy of visa screening procedures, circumstances for which the courts afford “considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations.” Washington, 847 F.3d at 1164. Nor is there any immediate harm presented to that grouping. They do not have visas and do not have an entitlement to one. Indeed, even if there were some legal right, there is no imminent harm from a temporary suspension where visa applicants normally must wait a period of months or longer to apply and/or be issued a visa or travel document if found eligible. See Declaration of Emily Chiang ¶ 13 (ECF No. 8) (“The process of getting a visa for her mother who lives in Iran was long and arduous. It took six months to get an appointment with the embassy. Her appointment was in August and she finally received her visa in early January.”)...."

The portion I bolded, above -- completely mischaracterizes the existing federal law. The Trump administration cannot change the law, simply by making a false assertion about it. The New Muslim Ban will be a dead letter. [The administration's ED NY version of the filing (in 17-cv-0480) of this afternoon, may be found here.]

Here endeth my sermon, for this day.


Anonymous said...

Written after yours:

condor said...

Thank you -- and this next one is written by a very well-respected and VERY CONSERVATIVE legal scholar. Professor Somin makes the argument in a more fulsome, adroit and thoughtful fashion, than I might ever hope to muster. But his thesis is mine as well.

So, do go read it all -- if you want to know how this will all end.


condor said...

And now. . . this?!

Per The Hill, just now:

". . .Late Sunday evening Khizr Khan, an American citizen for over 30 years, was notified that his travel privileges are being reviewed. As a consequence, Mr. Khan will not be traveling to Toronto on March 7th to speak about tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law. Very regretfully, Ramsay Talks must cancel its luncheon with Mr. Khan. Guests will be given full refunds,” the statement, which was also posted on Facebook, reads. . . ."

SO -- a Gold Star father who fought a clearly first amendment protected "war of words" -- in public, and honorably so -- with Trump this past summer. . . is under review?

There is simply no basis in any existing federal law, or rules, that would even allow such a review -- of a US citizen, like Mr. Khan. None. [There is absolutely zero evidence that he has ever committed treason -- quite obviously. And that would be the among the very few real grounds -- or (for example) the advocating for a violent overthrow of the US government. This is all just. . . preposterous.]

I'll wait a tic, to see if 45 confirms he is "under review" -- (whatever he thinks that might mean) but if so, we (as tax-payers) are very-likely going to owe him a large award in damages, should he decide to sue the Administration. Perhaps 45 himself ought to pay it.