Whoops, big fail. Some of us actually have real lives…
2 Likes
Yeah, I am not a fan of that type of post.
and yet… we still have DACA
2 Likes
Fair.
Daca is still murky though and is still going through court challenges. Supreme Court upheld it in 2020 in relation to Trump.
There is nothing murky about it. It directed the executive branch to ignore US immigration law and violate US employment law.
A President, and his administration choosing not to fully enforce a law is one thing. All do, its not a matter of EO, but of emphasizing other policy choices. I can think of no other instance where any President by EO has instructed his administration to 100% subvert the law, aiding and abetting lawbreakers. Both illegal aliens and those who hire them.
2 Likes
A President can’t make law. Your thread title is inaccurate.
I personally believe anyone burning the flag should be put in jail. But it makes no difference what I think. Trump’s executive order will most certainly be blocked as a violation of the first amendment.
2 Likes
I don’t agree with that description.
It’s been through the courts many many times and it’s still here.
an anti first amendment person i see.
figures.
Allan
Excuse #2.
Its been through the courts once, not many many times.
The law says quite clearly that illegal aliens will be detained, kept in a third country, or paroled into the US ONLY for the good of the US.
A cogent argument could be made that DACA recipients could be paroled and it would benefit the US. That however does not change employment law which clearly states illegal aliens can not be hired. The executive can give temporary work authorization to parolees, so that also is possible. In fact, I would support both. I would support making DACA law. It however is not law, and recipients are not parolees.
There are two ways to do it right, and one way to do it wrong. The Congress has to to do the first, the executive can do the second. What we have now, is wrong.
Under current law DACA recpients are illegal aliens and cannot be hired. The President has neither the constitutional authority nor legal authority to change either one of those with an EO.
which excuse would that be? The one you made up in your head and wish to ascribe to me?
An interesting debate.
I assume you are as horrified about the OP, yes?
yes. maybe if you read instead of assumed you’d have figured that out. I assume you are as horrified by Obama’s EO… no?
2 Likes
Burning a flag is not just an exercise of free speech.
Laws against causing a riot exist at both the state and federal levels, criminalizing the incitement, organization, and participation in a violent public disturbance that threatens public safety. Key federal laws address incitement or participation in a riot and involve interstate commerce. State laws, such as those in Florida and California, define riot more broadly to include violent disorderly conduct, and penalties can be severe, potentially including prison time and fines, though some regulations face constitutional challenges. - AI
Most states and cities have burn laws.
I don’t like the idea of EO’s period.
No, I do not like that it was done by EO.
Do you think this EO is any worse because of threats to jail people?
great! we are in agreement.
Pretty much if you think DJT is going too far with this.
of course he is. I already said I do not support it. It’s not the first thing I don’t support that he’s done and likely won’t be the last. On balance however, he’s still running about 80% with me.
What if this EO stood and people start getting jailed for burning their flag an their property?
An anti-flag burning person.
