Trump Fires Acting Attorney General • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#271

Post by camiller » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:56 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #240

mordant wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The law passed by Congress in this case states that the immigration department is not allowed to discriminate based by country of origin. See Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: "(f) 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…

8 USC § 1152(a)(1)(a): Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. Paragraph 2 does not provide grounds for Trump's order. It sets a cap on t…

8 USC §1182(f) which states in part: "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."

§1152 and §1182 would seem to be at odds with each other.

But no

Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”).

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#272

Post by robbiep » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:57 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #254

robbiep wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment

> If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish. I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely:…

I am a CEO. And yes I recognise the foolishness of poor management practices, as well as acting in a shortsighted or criminal manner. Perhaps we should differentiate between insubordination/disloyalty, which is what the parent comment is about, and some version of the Nuremberg defence, namely, I was told to do it and failed to process that it was an immoral or criminal act.

Both may get you fired; morally one is correct and the other isn't.

great chat.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#273

Post by varelse » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:58 PM UTC

mwpmaybe wrote: post #138

cookiecaper wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see the flaw. Many people are pretending that Trump explicitly selected these countries because they didn't interfere with his business interests, or that he selected them specifically because they are home to many Muslims (in fact, the nations with the 5 largest Muslim populations are totally unaffected by the order). The Trump administration wisely chose to use a list of countries that had been previously…

You are clearly 10x smarter than I am, but I wish you would use your powers for good. Yes, it was clever of then to use the list, because it gives them the cover to do whatever they want to do, knowing full well that people like you and Andrew McCarthy of the National Review would defend their actions using this argument. You must be able see the difference between what the Obama administration did in 2015 and the Tr…

It makes for the same sort of easily repeatable distractoid like bleating that Obama did the same thing(tm) in 2011.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-o...

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#274

Post by robbiep » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 2:59 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #257

robbiep wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty. If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment

The US has a Constitution. Being President/General/CEO doesn't mean you get to assume you're above the law.

Although it doesn't stop people from assuming that; and sometimes the law has a long lag time. I would also like to append my comments here I made Lowe down regarding the difference between insubordination/disloyalty (parent comment) and Nuremberg defence style actions

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#275

Post by needz » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:02 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #117

cookiecaper wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she is unable to faithfully discharge her duty to execute U.S. law, she should resign. She offers no argument to support her claim that the order was not lawful, other than her self-evident personal disagreement. Do you know of a credible legal argument that the president is not allowed to issue instructions to the Department of Homeland Security via executive order? Ms. Yates apparently does, but she doesn't wish…

> There is nothing in Trump's EO that singles anyone out by religious affiliation or background. This is false. It has explicit exceptions for "religious minorities". Wikipedia: "After the resumption of USRAP, refugee applications will be prioritized based on religion-based persecutions only in the case that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in that country."

I would say that while the statement is false, context is required.

America has historically given priority to immigrants that are victim to religion-based persecution. We are, after all, a nation founded by settlers seeking freedom from religious prosecution from a country in which they were the minority.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#276

Post by wtbob » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:02 PM UTC

She had two legitimate options: execute the President's instructions if she thought they are legal and moral, or resign if she thought they are illegal or immoral. She doesn't have the option to refuse to do her job.

Ministers and government officials resign all the time when they believe that their government's position is in error.

N.b.: I did not vote for Trump; I am not certain that everything in his immigration-related executive order is consistent with the law (but I am not certain that it's not, either: I am not a lawyer).

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#277

Post by wtbob » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:06 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #252

cookiecaper wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The orders only have the force of law if they are based in laws already passed by Congress. If the order conflicts with these laws or the Constitution, it's the order that gets ignored, not the laws. Yes, I agree. It's the judiciary's role to interpret the law and decide whether there is a conflict. It is true that the AG has an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the elements of the Constitution that provide…

> It doesn't seem typical for presidents to seek to install such instructions by legislative action. President Obama issued several EOs of a similar nature while Ms. Yates was present at the DoJ. Why did she not resign then? A pretty critical point: Obama used Executive Orders because in part he had a Congress that, courtesy of Mitch McConnell, stated openly that they had no intention of passing Bills on the Presiden…

> Obama used Executive Orders because in part he had a Congress that, courtesy of Mitch McConnell, stated openly that they had no intention of passing Bills on the President's behalf, even if good.

So? Mr. Obama's executive orders were in many cases inconsistent with the law and the Constitution. 'They won't be nice to me!' is insufficient reason for any president to violate his oath of office, whether Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama or anyone else.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#278

Post by wtbob » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #102

cookiecaper wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she is unable to faithfully discharge her duty to execute U.S. law, she should resign. She offers no argument to support her claim that the order was not lawful, other than her self-evident personal disagreement. Do you know of a credible legal argument that the president is not allowed to issue instructions to the Department of Homeland Security via executive order? Ms. Yates apparently does, but she doesn't wish…

She signed an oath to defend the constitution, not an oath of loyalty to Trump.

> She signed an oath to defend the constitution, not an oath of loyalty to Trump.

Yes, indeed: and the choice available which is consistent with that oath is to resign.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#279

Post by pg314 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:10 PM UTC

mordant wrote: post #216

davesque wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

> He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California .

That is a silly argument.

You can argue equally well that Clinton won the electoral college except for Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and South Carolina. That excludes about the same number of people as your argument, and is equally silly.

Re: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

#280

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:10 PM UTC

davexunit wrote: post #267

mordant wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As true as this is, the symbolism behind this action is really troubling. On the contrary, I find it thrilling, and am eager for more in this vein.

Thanks for letting us know that you are a fascist.

You can't argue this way on HN, and since your side of this argument is so utterly in command of the high ground, I'm kind of baffled by why you'd think name calling was a good idea.

You have the facts on your side. Use them to win the argument, already.