best casino bonuses australian online casino au dollars trusted online gambling internet casino download old information online us casinos las vegas best online casino craps flash casino games mac play online vegas

Get Our Newsletter



Links

Columnists



Site Search


Entire (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

Archive Calendar

August 2017
S M T W T F S
« Jul    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Guides

How to Become a Bounty Hunter



Tag: executive order

Trump Blasts His Own Justice Department Over ‘Watered Down’ Travel Ban

President Trump

President Trump

By Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.com

President Trump blasted his own Justice Department in a series of tweets Monday morning, saying his travel ban has been “watered down” in order pass legal muster.

Trump urged the Justice Department to seek a “much tougher version” of the executive order that he signed to block individuals from six-majority Muslim countries from entering the U.S.

Courts have blocked two versions of his travel ban, largely because it targets a religion.

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump tweeted early Monday morning. “The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.”

Trump also lashed out at the courts, calling them “slow and political.”

The JusticeDepartment formally asked the Supreme Court last week to declare his executive order is constitutional.

The order before the Supreme Court is a narrower version of Trump’s controversial directive, which he signed during his first week in office.

President Trump to Issue New Travel Ban Order That Removes Iraqis from List

airport-people-walkingBy Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.com

President Trump is expected to sign a new executive order Monday to replace his previous U.S. travel ban, which was blocked by courts.

Reuters reports that Iraq will be removed from the list of countries targeted in the travel ban.

The order would impose a 90-day ban on travel from the U.S. to six Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Iraq was removed from the original order because of new vetting procedures and its work helping the U.S. combat ISIS.

The new order also isn’t expected to impact tens of thousands of legal permanent residents who are green card holders.

President Trump’s Cyber Security Plan Diminishes FBI’s Role

hacking By Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.com

President Trump’s cybersecurity plan diminishes the role the FBI played in protecting the nation’s digital infrastructure.

A draft copy of the executive order also fails to mention protecting elections. 

“We are not sure how to explain this, as the FBI and law enforcement secured an important role in cybersecurity early in the Obama administration,” Charley Snyder and Michael Sulmeyer wrote Monday on the Lawfare blog, which focuses on national security law. “FBI zealously guards its role in investigating malicious cyber activities, and had been given a leading role in Obama-era policies.”

The executive order also failed to mention that the federal government will protect digital election systems.

President Trump Fires Acting AG Yates for Defying Executive Order on Immigration

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates

By Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.com

President Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday after she refused to defend his executive order on immigration.

Yates served as deputy attorney general for the Obama administration and named the acting attorney general until Sen. Jeff Session is confirmed.

In the meantime, the Trump administration appointed Dana Boente, 63, to serve as acting attorney general. Boente served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, NBC News reports.

Yates had directed Justice Department lawyers not to defend the executive order, but Boente rescinded the directive.

Yates “has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House said in a statement, adding: “Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”

“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with [the Justice Department’s] responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful,” Yates wrote. “For as long as I am the acting attorney general, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.”

Daily Iowan: Trump’s Travel Ban Is ‘Incredibly Callous And Inhumane’

airport-people-walkingBy Editorial Board
The Daily Iowan 

On Jan. 27, President Trump instituted, through an executive order, a temporary ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Trump contends that the action is necessary to keep America safe from international terrorists who may impersonate refugees to gain entry to the United States. He also asserted the action is a part of an agenda to prioritize the movement of Christian refugees fleeing war-torn regions of the Middle East.

Perhaps Trump does not see the tragic irony in his decree; the United States has been involved with a relatively constant bombing campaign in Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Micah Zenko, a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. has been responsible for dropping nearly 30,000 bombs (a very conservative estimate) in 2016 alone, with nearly 25,000 of these dropped in Syria and Iraq.

To first facilitate the conditions that necessitate the need to flee and then to write a specific rule that bars such people from entering the country is not just incredibly callous and inhumane, it is also incredibly stupid.

After multitudes of protests erupted outside and in international airports in which nationals of the targeted countries, despite having green cards and visas, were detained, a federal judge in Brooklyn managed to strike down part of Trump’s action.

The case, Darweesh v. Trump Order (which allows the movement of such detained individuals through American borders), came on the heels of a press release issued by the Department of Homeland Security that stated, “President Trump’s executive order remains in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s executive order affects a minor portion of international travelers and is a first step toward re-establishing control over America’s borders and national security.”

The façade of protecting national security through xenophobic attempts of bottle-necking immigration is just sensationalism.

To read more click here. 

Judge Declines to Lift Hold on President Obama’s Immigration Plans

By Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.com

President Obama’s plan to shield millions of immigrants from deportation received another setback Tuesday after a judge refused to lift a temporary hold on the executive action.

The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville declined the administration’s request to lift the preliminary injunction issued on Feb. 16.

Without the injunction lifted, the administration is barred from implementing its new immigration policies.

The Justice Department also has appealed the court’s original hold on the actions, and arguments could begin as early as April 17.

GOP Lawmakers Consider Ways to Disrupt President Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration

By Steve Neavling
ticklethewire.com 

While Congressional Republicans pledge to fight President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, there’s little they can do, GOP leaders acknowledged Tuesday.

The USA Today reports that Republicans have limited options.

“We’re looking at a variety of options, both for right now and when Republicans control both houses of the Congress next year,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, “Frankly, we have limited options and limited abilities to deal with it directly.”

One plan calls for a government funding bill, but that could result in another partial government shutdown.

Republicans are considering approving a temporary funding bill for Homeland Security, which oversees immigration.

Democrats were not happy. Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson said a temporary funding bill for DHS “undermines its ability to carry out critical homeland security missions such as protecting our air, land and sea borders and cyberspace.”

Washington Post: President Obama’s Executive Order Is ‘Convenient Reinterpretation of Tradition’

By Michael Gerson 
Opinion Writer for Washington Post

There are any number of marvelous things one might do as president, if Congress were not such a checked and balanced mess. But future presidents now have a new method at their disposal: Declare a long-running debate to be a national emergency. Challenge Congress, under threat of unilateral executive action, to legislate on the topic before your term runs out. And when lawmakers refuse, act with the most expansive definition of presidential power.

The supporting arguments for this approach come down to the claim that the American political system is broken — incapable of action on urgent matters because of obstructionism, bad faith and the abuse of legislative procedure. It is the political philosophy of “something must be done.”

The arguments against this approach often come down to institutionalism. Major policy shifts, in this view, deserve legislative hearings and an open amendment process. The White House should make its views known and issue veto threats. There should be a negotiation between the House and Senate to reconcile a bill. There should be a presidential signature, or a veto and an override debate. The machinery is admittedly creaky, but it manufactures democratic legitimacy.

President Obama has ably and sequentially defended both these positions. A year ago, during another immigration speech, a heckler insisted, “You have a power to stop deportations.” Obama replied: “Actually, I don’t, and that’s why we’re here. . . . What you need to know, when I’m speaking as president of the United States and I come to this community, is that if, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve.”

Obama has now officially abandoned the harder path — not because the issues surrounding immigration will never be resolved (a case no one has adequately made) but because he wants to be the president to resolve them. Since our democratic process has proved disappointing during his time in office, we get a convenient reinterpretation of tradition — using a history of reasonable discretion in tying up the loose ends of a law to justify a major policy shift in the absence of law. This is motivated reasoning on steroids — and future presidents of both parties will likely find it appealing, on a variety of issues.

By crossing this particular Rubicon, Obama has given up on politics, which is, from one perspective, understandable. He doesn’t do it well. He has always viewed the political process as sullied, compared with the reasonableness of his policy insights. In the aftermath of his party’s midterm defeat, he diagnosed a problem of salesmanship. “It’s not enough just to build a better mousetrap,” he said. “People don’t automatically come beating to your door. We’ve got to sell it.”

To read more click here.