Florida Shooting: 17 Students Shot dead in another Mass Shooting in the U.S

Originally Posted by Mick

And partially overturned by the Supreme Court.

You are making my point for me, that Presidents cannot act alone Hugh. So thanks for finally admitting a President cannot do stuff on his own.

It's important to note that Obama tried to extend the DACA program to include Adults, several States sued and an injunction was put in to place to block it. It was later contested in the Supreme Court and they kept the injunction in place. So Trump is not the only President to have his authority challenged, same with Bill Clinton, he had one of his Executive Orders invalidated by a Federal Appeals Court.

So going back to Trump doing something about Guns, he needs Congress to act, he cannot do it alone, otherwise any future President can come in and just revert a prior Executive Order.

You are more than welcome - does that mean the other 50+ Executive Orders Trumplethinskin has signed, without Congressional sign-off or Judicial challenge, don’t count?

Funny how with one President it’s a "blatant abuse of executive power.", but with another, it’s not...

Originally Posted by Hugh

You are more than welcome - does that mean the other 50+ Executive Orders Trumplethinskin has signed, without Congressional sign-off or Judicial challenge, don’t count?

Funny how with one President it’s a "blatant abuse of executive power.", but with another, it’s not...

I’ve never brought up issues with Trump’s Executives Orders or whether any of them were over stepping his constitutional authority, if they do that’s for Congress or Supreme Court to contest and or indeed the Judicial system, which some lower district courts have and then Supreme Court has stepped in and partially removed the lower courts injunction, while it reviews the case in full.

We’re on the same page yeah, regarding balance of power?

I made a point that the President cannot act alone when it comes to gun control, you’re the one who came at me saying that a President Executive Orders carry legal weight, and I’m saying they do, but I’m saying they can be challenged quite easily because his authority is not legislative. So something like gun control needs to be properly legislated, so a future president comes along and and thinks, I’m scrapping that order, with a new order.

If President Obama had the Paris Climate Accord deal passed through Congress and it became law, Trump would not have been able to pull out of it when he did.

And just to be really pedantic... President Obama’s Action regarding DACA, was not an Executive Order, DACA was established by a Memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security. It’s why it’s establishment is said to be unconstitutional, because it’s a suspension of a law and the Presidents fundamental role as it states in the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law. As per Section 3, Clause 5. This clause prevents a president from suspending the enforcement of any written law, which is basically what that DACA Memorandum instructs. Obama was abusing his powers, DACA is not Constitutional, it’s as simple as that.

No court has ever said that DACA is not constitutional - it's as simple as that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...onstitutional/

There’s debate among experts on whether DACA is constitutional or not, but there is agreement that a court ruling on the constitutionality of the program has not been issued.

"There has been no court decision holding that DACA itself is unconstitutional," Anil Kalhan, an associate professor of law at Drexel University.

A lawsuit to challenge the 2012 DACA was dismissed for lack of standing, and that decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Kalhan said. "So there was never any adjudication on the merits," he said...

...Texas and 25 other states won a lawsuit against the Obama administration by having a federal district judge block the implementation of an expanded version of the 2012 DACA and of another deportation reprieve program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). An appeals court upheld the ruling, and in 2016 the Supreme Court ruled 4-4 on the case, leaving in place the lower court's ruling.

But when those programs were temporarily enjoined by the district court in Texas, it was not on constitutional grounds, Kalhan said, "but rather based on a conclusion that Obama administration should have instituted the policy using notice and comment rule-making, rather than using the more informal guidance document that it issued."

A final, binding precedent even on that basis was not set either, since it was only a preliminary injunction and the Supreme Court deadlocked, Kalhan said.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

I’ve never brought up issues with Trump’s Executives Orders or whether any of them were over stepping his constitutional authority,

I doubt anyone would accuse you of that.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 21:09 ----------

Ray of hope?

Trump backs better system of background checks after shooting
President Donald Trump supports efforts to improve the national background check system for gun purchasers, the White House said on Monday, potentially giving impetus to a limited legislative effort after last week’s massacre in Florida.
The statement, from White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, came as people across the US spoke out about the frequency of mass shootings after the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school where Nikolas Cruz allegedly killed 17 students and teachers with an AR-15 assault rifle.

https://www.ft.com/content/a6730f7e-...c-25c814761640

That's not really changing the law, just 'improving' the sharing of information in the current system I think.

Originally Posted by Hugh

No court has ever said that DACA is not constitutional - it's as simple as that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...onstitutional/

In your case, no it isn't. Plenty of lawmakers have and they are correct, it is unconstitutional. I have explained why and I stand by it.

And as already stated, several States sued when Obama tried to extend the DACA program to include Adults. An injunction was put in place and it then went to the Supreme Court who kept the injunction in place.

If the current DACA program is extended beyond March 5th, several lawsuits, from several States, will go ahead.

President Obama said himself, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself."

He also said... "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case."

In 2011, Obama acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law himself. ... saying... "That's not how a democracy works."

But to hell with that, he put DACA in place anyway, to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, including as teenagers. They were given work permits and were entitled to social security benefits.

He did this despite the fact Congress specifically rejected bills to provide such benefits, so however much you want to argue the toss on this, Obama abused his executive power.

So again, despite all this and my whole point since you started this issue of saying the President's EO's have a legal standing. Trump cannot invoke gun laws on his own without some serious legal challenges in the future. If it's legislated through congress, then no-one can challenge it, unless it's repealed by Congress, it's Constitutional, the same applies to DACA.

I'm curious why people in the UK care so much about what is (or is not) legal in the US.

I seem to see more arguments on the forum about another country, and its leadership, than about our own

Originally Posted by Paul M

I'm curious why people in the UK care so much about what is (or is not) legal in the US.

I seem to see more arguments on the forum about another country, and its leadership, than about our own

It's a valid question... Perhaps we still have a connection to what was the British Colonies (Now U.S.A since 1776), even after all this time.

[1andrew1]

The recent terrible shooting seems to have generated more protests than others.

George and Amal Clooney donate $500,000 to students organising ‘March for our Life’
Amal and George Clooney are donating a half a million dollars to the students organising marches against gun violence following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last week.
The actor said that he and his human rights lawyer wife were “inspired” by the efforts undertaken by the high school students in the wake of a tragedy that has sent tremblers through their community and the nation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8220381.html

Dinesh D’Souza hits a new low...

It's amazing how politics can eventually led to the 'other' side being entirely dehumunished. How lacking in empathy do you have to be to mock children that survived a school shooting? You don't have to agree with their politics to empathise with them on a human level.

D'Souza is just a nasty man whose hate has taken over entirely, it's lack a cancer that just consumes someone. Yet he has probably rarely met the people he hates such as these school children.

[CassieJ]

God...I didn't know anything about this news! RIP...it's such a problem in US school, heard about many cases before, mostly because of bullying issue.

[Hom3r]

This cartoon is doing the rounds in the US, it's very powerfull.

[richard s]

I wonder if enough USA politicians children were killed (god forbid) by a gun nut would there be movement on a complete ban on guns in the USA. A Trump/administration proposal to raise the age of gun ownership to 21. Dhooooo. Knumb Skulls as if that would make a difference.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by richard s

I wonder if enough USA politicians children were killed (god forbid) by a gun nut would there be movement on a complete ban on guns in the USA. A Trump/administration proposal to raise the age of gun ownership to 21. Dhooooo. Knumb Skulls as if that would make a difference.

Probably wouldn't make any difference, they are all mad.