The Spin. Tucker Carlson on Fox News started out with the question, “Do (illegal) immigrants have Constitutional rights?” Remember, Fox News is out to obfuscate legal questions and to troll their audience of obviously uninformed people. The truth is, YES, immigrants, legal OR illegal have rights under the US Constitution.
You do not have legal rights. Truth: Undocumented immigrants DO have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute. As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.
So they need to STOP their constant class wars. NOW.
Trump’s Position. The President has UNREVIEWABLE authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens under the US Constitution.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled UNAMIMOUSLY that “...neither the Supeme Court or our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.”
In Fact…
thehill.com/...
What is confusing these dunderheads is that illegal aliens DO NOT have Second Amendment Rights.
www.judicialwatch.org/…
FURTHERMORE,
blog.constitutioncenter.org/…
The Constitution DOES NOT give the government the right to conduct a MASS DEPORTATION of any Foreign nationals who enter the U.S. illegally and then remain do not have fully protected rights under the Constitution. They cannot vote, for example. But it has been true since at least 1886 that the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted as assuring them at least a significant measure of constitutional equality and fair treatment. The government simply does not have the constitutional power to do whatever it wishes with non-citizens, based solely on their illegal presence inside the country.
SO DONALD TRUMP RAN FOR PRESIDENT UNDER A LIE AND HE WAS ELECTED ANYWAY.
Does this worry you? If not it should. Donald Trump still thinks the President has unlimited power, especially in this instance. This is evidenced by this bird-brained tweet…
“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”
His statement to the media was, “It’s a political decision and we will see them in court and I will look forward to doing that.”
Reporter: So you believe the judges made a political decision?
Trump: We have a situation where the security of our country is at stake, and it’s a very, very serious situation so we look forward as I just said to seeing them in court.
The facts are that the government has not provided evidence of national security issues that justified the ban. So, in essence, Trump is correct. This IS a political decision. IT is HIS political decision. It was also unconstitutional.
SO WILL TRUMP DECLARE MARTIAL LAW IF HE DOES NOT GET HIS WAY?
IS THIS THE SO-CALLED “NUCLEAR OPTION” THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE HIDING FROM AMERICANS?
Martial Law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is "under martial law," we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The degree of control might vary - a nation may have a civilian legislature but have the courts administered by the military. Or the legislature and courts may operate under civilian control with a military ruler. In each case, martial law is in effect, even if it is not called "martial law."
Martial law should not be confused with military justice. In the United States, for example, each branch of the military has its own judicial structures in place. Members of the service are under the control of military law, and in some cases civilians working for or with the military may be subject to military law. But this is the normal course of business in the military. Martial law is the exception to the rule. In the United States, the military courts were created by the Congress, and cases can be appealed out of the military system to the Supreme Court in many cases. In addition, a civilian court can petition the military for habeas corpus.
Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.
Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.
In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise.
Is Donald Trump capable of doing this? I think that Trump has more than demonstrated that he is definitely capable of doing this to overcome the judiciary if he does not get his way in court.
Let the discussion begin.