ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th February 2017, 10:18 PM   #121
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,079
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Well, I think they reversed field only "post-Robart".
No, it was shortly before. I can find stories from the end of January about reversing the green card holder ban, but Robart ruled on Feb 3, according to the link in the OP.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 10:30 PM   #122
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,808
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There is no right to immigrate to the US. Preventing someone from doing so does not infringe upon any civil liberties. The federal government has absolute power to decide who can immigrate, the constitution places no restrictions upon it. The only relevant question is how much Trump can do through executive order versus what Congress gets to decide, but Robart's decision doesn't seem to have anything coherent to say about that.

That's not actually true. It is still bound by limits placed on it from things like the Establishment Clause, and taking noble titles in exchange for immigration is likewise right out. The Establishment Clause is not a 'right', it is a limit on the government. If it was found the intention of this ban was to limit Muslims, the ban would almost certainly be found unconstitutional if challenged on Establishment Clause grounds. It certainly would if it was Trump's original plan to just ban Muslims, because the government has absolutely no place defining who belongs to Islamic faith. The favoring of Christian refugees is likewise very sketchy.

Due Process comes in for things like the green-cards being revoked, so while it's a good thing they dropped that it still shows how monumentally stupid this was in the first place.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 10:51 PM   #123
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,370
I don't know of a single person in the government who doesn't think the EO was flat out stupid and entirely useless.

While it is true that ISIL and other terrorist groups can be easily found in the seven countries named in the ban, they can also be found in the countries NOT named in the ban (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Turkey, and multiple countries in the Levant and Africa). Trump's stated reason for the ban was to prevent terrorism, however there have been no terrorist attacks against US interest from any of the seven named countries for many years, unlike the countries NOT named on the list (i.e. fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11 being from Saudi Arabia).

The plain fact is, there already is a system in place for what many would call "extreme vetting". Here's how it works:

1. Persons seeking refuge in the US apply through the office of the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees. That office will forward applications to the US State Department.
2. Once an application is received, the State Department will do biometric and biographic checks against various US security databases, to include the State Department itself, DHS, the Consular Lookout and Support System, the Consular Consolidated Database, TECS (a DHS security system), the NCTC/FBI Terrorist Screening Center, TIDE, the Terrorist Screening Database, Interpol, DEA, Department of Defense, and the Automated Biometric Identification System (or ABIS).
3. The application then requires a security advisory opinion to be completed by the FBI and the Intelligence Community (which, I will point out, includes sixteen different intelligence agencies) as well as interagency checks with multiple other government agencies.
4. ICE will conduct a refugee interview, usually focusing on country-specific issues as well as security and refugee and immigration matters.
5. If, after all that has happened, the application is approved, the next step begins; health screenings and orientations. The State Department and Office of Refugee Settlement within the Department of Health and Human Services will work with voluntary resettlement agencies to get all this done.
6. Assuming the refugee passes all of this, they are allowed into the US.

The entire process can take 12-18 months, and that's if everything is done in a timely fashion. It is constantly being refined, and it's worth noting that thus far only two Iraqi terrorists have ever slipped through the cracks since this system was implemented, and it's processed literally thousands of refugees. That's a damn good record however you slice it, so clearly our current vetting process works and works damn well. Here's a link to an infographic that explains it even better, if you're a more visual than textual learner. Given that, does a Trump supporter in this thread want to explain to me exactly how that process can be improved upon?
__________________
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.

Last edited by Sabrina; 6th February 2017 at 10:54 PM.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 11:05 PM   #124
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 35,720
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it was shortly before. I can find stories from the end of January about reversing the green card holder ban, but Robart ruled on Feb 3, according to the link in the OP.
Ok, found it! I couldn't locate anything in a full article that they reversed Priebus' mish-mash on the 29th, but that's 'cuz I was looking for a full article and it was confirmed mostly as "updates" to the Priebus flip-flop, e.g. in the same articles just with an "updated..." tag. Yeah, the WH confirmed on Sunday evening (the 29th, later the same day).
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 01:00 AM   #125
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,370
A bipartisan list of former national security and diplomatic officials has filed an affidavit asserting that Trump's travel ban would actually harm national security, not improve it. The actual affidavit can be found at the bottom of this article, and includes such names as Susan Rice, Janet Napolitano, John Kerry, and Michael Hayden.

I can find very little I would disagree with in this affidavit. The stated reason for the ban, that the countries named in it are a danger to US national security, is not born out by the evidence and was not, as far as I am aware and has been stated in the news and in statements from the White House, even been vetted by the general intelligence community for validity. Even the list of the 78 terrorist attacks the White House is claiming were not reported on (even when they totally were) includes, in the US at least, mainly perpetrators who were US citizens, not foreign nationals from any of the named countries. There exists, as far as I can see (and I am basing this on my nearly fifteen years of experience in the intelligence community), no concrete threat to US national security from any of these countries; certainly there is a somewhat nebulous dislike of us from Iran, but the remainder of the seven countries have very little issue with us. In Iraq, there are multiple groups that our US Special Forces and many civilian contractors work closely with who view the ban as a complete insult to their country, and could actually endanger those people if, despite PM Abadi's statement to the contrary, they decide to retaliate. I can see absolutely no reason why the ban should be allowed to be reinstated and a multitude of reasons why it should not.
__________________
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 04:57 AM   #126
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it was shortly before. I can find stories from the end of January about reversing the green card holder ban, but Robart ruled on Feb 3, according to the link in the OP.
Judge Gorton in Massachusetts released his opinion on a similar case at almost precisely the same time as Judge Robart and reached the opposite conclusion. In his opinion, he determined that the claims of green card holders were moot because it had been made clear that the executive order did not apply to green card holders.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 05:07 AM   #127
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
A bipartisan list of former national security and diplomatic officials has filed an affidavit asserting that Trump's travel ban would actually harm national security, not improve it. The actual affidavit can be found at the bottom of this article, and includes such names as Susan Rice, Janet Napolitano, John Kerry, and Michael Hayden.

I can find very little I would disagree with in this affidavit. The stated reason for the ban, that the countries named in it are a danger to US national security, is not born out by the evidence and was not, as far as I am aware and has been stated in the news and in statements from the White House, even been vetted by the general intelligence community for validity. Even the list of the 78 terrorist attacks the White House is claiming were not reported on (even when they totally were) includes, in the US at least, mainly perpetrators who were US citizens, not foreign nationals from any of the named countries. There exists, as far as I can see (and I am basing this on my nearly fifteen years of experience in the intelligence community), no concrete threat to US national security from any of these countries; certainly there is a somewhat nebulous dislike of us from Iran, but the remainder of the seven countries have very little issue with us. In Iraq, there are multiple groups that our US Special Forces and many civilian contractors work closely with who view the ban as a complete insult to their country, and could actually endanger those people if, despite PM Abadi's statement to the contrary, they decide to retaliate. I can see absolutely no reason why the ban should be allowed to be reinstated and a multitude of reasons why it should not.
That is all irrelevant, or should be. The President gets to make his own judgment about such things. It is not the place of the courts, or Susan Rice, John Kerry and Madeline Albright for cripes sake, to veto his judgment because they disagree with him. I actually find it disturbing that such people even be allowed to file an amicus curiae. Their contribution is not an opinion about the law. It is an opinion about the cost-benefit calculation that they would substitute for the President's if they were President. But they're not the President.

I mean this has gotten to the point of silliness. It's like a coup by the judiciary. If we were in a war, would a judge in Seattle issue a TRO to prevent the President from ordering the bombing of a certain target until Susan Rice could give her input to the court as to the wisdom of such an action?
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 05:23 AM   #128
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Sabrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,370
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
That is all irrelevant, or should be. The President gets to make his own judgment about such things. It is not the place of the courts, or Susan Rice, John Kerry and Madeline Albright for cripes sake, to veto his judgment because they disagree with him. I actually find it disturbing that such people even be allowed to file an amicus curiae. Their contribution is not an opinion about the law. It is an opinion about the cost-benefit calculation that they would substitute for the President's if they were President. But they're not the President.

I mean this has gotten to the point of silliness. It's like a coup by the judiciary. If we were in a war, would a judge in Seattle issue a TRO to prevent the President from ordering the bombing of a certain target until Susan Rice could give her input to the court as to the wisdom of such an action?
The relevancy of the affidavit aside, the issue at hand has to do with Trump's stated reason for the ban; i.e. U.S. National Security. I can guarantee you that no one in the Intelligence Community agrees with the administration's assessment that there is an immediate and present danger from any of the seven named countries to our national security; believe me, I would have heard about it, considering my current method of employment. The Trump administration made this decision without once consulting the people who would actually know of imminent threats to the country, and continues to assert they know more than the people who actually have access to the actionable intelligence to make a determination regarding such an issue. The President cannot and should not make these kind of arbitrary decisions without the advice of the people who actually know the potential for security concerns; that is why he has intelligence analysts in the first goddamn place. All the ban has done is put us in more danger, not less, from these countries.

The Presidency is not a position where the President does not listen to the people around him who actually know the information he needs to make informed decisions. That is the point that is being made by the affidavit; the administration made an arbitrary decision that has endangered countless US military members and civilian contractors working overseas and has refused to acknowledge that fact. I know of a multitude of reports in Iraqi media, for instance, where the Iraqi people have become infuriated over what they see as an insult to their honor (an extremely important issue in the Middle East) and many are calling for attacks on US service members in retaliation. PM Abadi has thankfully issued a statement saying Iraq as a whole will not seek retaliation, but that doesn't prevent Mohammed on the streets from targeting US contractors or service members if he happens to spot them. That is what Trump's travel ban has put us in for, and if you can't see the inherent problem with that, than I'm afraid there's no hope for you.
__________________
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 05:38 AM   #129
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
The President gets to make his own judgment about such things. It is not the place of the courts, to veto his judgment because they disagree with him.
I mean this has gotten to the point of silliness.
What checks and balances do you consider should apply to decisions of the President.

Say a president makes an executive order saying that for the safety of US citizens all guns should be destroyed, all cars should be crushed and all swimming pools filled in.

I am interested in the procedure not the issue. Should there be a means to oppose and stop that order and if so what should it be?

You appear to offer the President unlimited unquestionable power.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 05:39 AM   #130
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,531
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
What checks and balances do you consider should apply to decisions of the President.

Say a president makes an executive order saying that for the safety of US citizens all guns should be destroyed, all cars should be crushed and all swimming pools filled in.

I am interested in the procedure not the issue. Should there be a means to oppose and stop that order and if so what should it be?

You appear to offer the President unlimited unquestionable power.
That is exactly what Trump supporters are about.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 05:40 AM   #131
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
The relevancy of the affidavit aside, the issue at hand has to do with Trump's stated reason for the ban; i.e. U.S. National Security. I can guarantee you that no one in the Intelligence Community agrees with the administration's assessment that there is an immediate and present danger from any of the seven named countries to our national security; believe me, I would have heard about it, considering my current method of employment. The Trump administration made this decision without once consulting the people who would actually know of imminent threats to the country, and continues to assert they know more than the people who actually have access to the actionable intelligence to make a determination regarding such an issue. The President cannot and should not make these kind of arbitrary decisions without the advice of the people who actually know the potential for security concerns; that is why he has intelligence analysts in the first goddamn place. All the ban has done is put us in more danger, not less, from these countries.
Sorry, I don't believe you. Your claim is obviously hyperbole. Still irrelevant to the legal issues involved. There are longer range considerations involved in restricting visas and immigration, beyond just immediate terrorist threats. Even by your own reasoning, that the ban has now put us in more danger rather than less by inciting violent animus towards us, the ban actually takes on immediate importance.

Quote:
The Presidency is not a position where the President does not listen to the people around him who actually know the information he needs to make informed decisions. That is the point that is being made by the affidavit; the administration made an arbitrary decision that has endangered countless US military members and civilian contractors working overseas and has refused to acknowledge that fact. I know of a multitude of reports in Iraqi media, for instance, where the Iraqi people have become infuriated over what they see as an insult to their honor (an extremely important issue in the Middle East) and many are calling for attacks on US service members in retaliation. PM Abadi has thankfully issued a statement saying Iraq as a whole will not seek retaliation, but that doesn't prevent Mohammed on the streets from targeting US contractors or service members if he happens to spot them. That is what Trump's travel ban has put us in for, and if you can't see the inherent problem with that, than I'm afraid there's no hope for you.
I never believed that crap about inciting animus. People just don't think that way. Not sane people anyway, and there's no hope for the insane ones. Just like there's no hope for me, apparently.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 05:43 AM   #132
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
That is exactly what Trump supporters are about.
To be fair, I assume they were also campaigning loudly and actively for Obama to have the same power to bypass the Senate, Representatives and the courts.

Last edited by Lothian; 7th February 2017 at 05:46 AM.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 05:43 AM   #133
The Great Zaganza
Graduate Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,678
The whole point of checks and balances is that each branch of the government can CHECK if another has overextended its competence.
Some obviously think that the Ban is unconstitutional, so the Supreme Court must check.

Simple as that.
__________________
“Today you will meet a three-ton rhinoceros called Desmond.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 05:45 AM   #134
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,531
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
To be fair, I assume they were also campaigning loudly and actively for Obama to have the same power to bypass the Senate, Congress and the courts.
Authoritarian power is only good if it's a Republican in charge.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:33 AM   #135
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,672
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-spicer-234688

Quote:
“The law is very clear that the president has broad powers to keep this country safe and to limit access to people that could come in to this country and do us harm,” Spicer told Fox News in an interview conducted Sunday but broadcast Monday morning. “He utilized that power in a very legal, constitutional manner to ensure that we are safe, our people are safe, our country is safe, our institutions are safe. And it’s somewhat sad to see a judge go rogue like this.”
How dare anyone second-guess Trump? Who does this guy think he is? Does he not know that Trump is the president? This rogue judge needs to be disciplined! We can't have judges risking American lives by taking the law into their own hands!

Quote:
“It’s a shame,” Spicer continued, “that we’re not focused more on making sure that we’re applauding the decision by the president to make a renewed focus on keeping this country safe.”
Yes it would be nice if the media would just fall in line and heap praise after praise on Trump for keeping America safe from any real, exaggerated or completely imaginary threats. He won! They lost!
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:39 AM   #136
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,160
If Trump ends up making the country safer, than I'll be the first to praise his decisions. However it doesn't seem like this Order was particularily well thought-out, nor does it seem to make the country more safe.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:42 AM   #137
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,079
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
That's not actually true. It is still bound by limits placed on it from things like the Establishment Clause,
I don't think filtering immigrants by religion qualifies as establishing a religion, but this is untested, so maybe. But this:

Quote:
and taking noble titles in exchange for immigration is likewise right out.
This is backwards. It isn't the allowing (or denying) immigration which is the problem, it's the taking noble titles. This says nothing about who the government can permit or forbid to enter the country. And this is basically the same thing as with bribes. It's the taking of the bribe which is illegal, even if it's to do something you're otherwise allowed to do, and even if you don't do what the bribe was for. The bribe itself triggers the law, regardless of what follows. So this cannot be accurately described as a limitation on controlling immigration, it's only a prohibition on accepting noble titles.

Quote:
Due Process comes in for things like the green-cards being revoked, so while it's a good thing they dropped that it still shows how monumentally stupid this was in the first place.
The constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity. And as already mentioned, the due process rights of green card holders plays no part in Robart's decision.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:45 AM   #138
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,709
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
That is all irrelevant, or should be. The President gets to make his own judgment about such things. It is not the place of the courts, or Susan Rice, John Kerry and Madeline Albright for cripes sake, to veto his judgment because they disagree with him. I actually find it disturbing that such people even be allowed to file an amicus curiae. Their contribution is not an opinion about the law. It is an opinion about the cost-benefit calculation that they would substitute for the President's if they were President. But they're not the President.

I mean this has gotten to the point of silliness. It's like a coup by the judiciary. If we were in a war, would a judge in Seattle issue a TRO to prevent the President from ordering the bombing of a certain target until Susan Rice could give her input to the court as to the wisdom of such an action?
Judicial review - it's what the courts are for.

I'll wait while you look it up in your grade school civics text.

Done yet?

If not, the role of the judicial branch is to review either the laws passed by the legislative branch, or the actions of the executive branch and rule on the legality of them. If the law or action is within the scope allowed by the Constitution then the court will rule in that way and the government goes its happy way. If the law or action is outside of the scope permitted by the Constitution, then it is struck down.

Your proposal leans more to the idea of "L'etat, c'est moi" or "If the President does it, it's legal" idea of government and I think you'll find that as a general principle, those have been discarded or found to be incorrect.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:45 AM   #139
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
What checks and balances do you consider should apply to decisions of the President.

Say a president makes an executive order saying that for the safety of US citizens all guns should be destroyed, all cars should be crushed and all swimming pools filled in.

I am interested in the procedure not the issue. Should there be a means to oppose and stop that order and if so what should it be?

You appear to offer the President unlimited unquestionable power.
In certain areas, the President does indeed have unlimited, unquestionable power, at least in the short-term. Since he is commander-in-chief, it would certainly be improper for a District Court judge in the Western District of Washington state to issue a TRO to stop him from ordering a drone missile strike on a terrorist base in Yemen. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences for the President, both politically and possibly legally, if it turns out he behaved improperly (e.g. his main purpose for the strike was to eliminate a political rival or an outspoken critic).

In this case, I believe the law is quite clear that the President has been granted plenary authority to exclude certain classes of aliens from the US. Even if there is a colorable argument that his executive order is illegal based on the fact that it is intended to discriminate based on religion (which I don't think it does, and which I don't think would be illegal even if it did), the granting of a TRO is certainly extreme.

This is nothing short of a judicial coup. And it's particularly frightening because the President's political opponents have 91 bites at the apple, since there are 91 District Courts.

Even more disturbing is that if Obama had done such a thing, there is no way that a state would sue him. He might get some nuisance suits from the ACLU (probably not actually) or some individuals here and there, but there's also no way that a judge would have issued a nationwide TRO. This is all partisan.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:45 AM   #140
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,160
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity.
They should've thought about that one.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:52 AM   #141
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
In certain areas, the President does indeed have unlimited, unquestionable power.....SNIP.....
I think you missed my question.

What checks and balances do you consider should apply to decisions of the President.

Say a president makes an executive order saying that for the safety of US citizens all guns should be destroyed, all cars should be crushed and all swimming pools filled in.

I am interested in the procedure not the issue. Should there be a means to oppose and stop that order and if so what should it be?
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 06:55 AM   #142
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Judicial review - it's what the courts are for.

I'll wait while you look it up in your grade school civics text.

Done yet?
Your snark makes you look foolish.

Regardless, courts are not "for" judicial review. Courts are "for" deciding cases in controversy according to the law, and applying it in a wide range of situations in which disputes between various entities arise. Judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor did people like Thomas Jefferson want the courts to have such power. The Supreme Court seized this power for itself in the Marbury v. Madison decision. Fine, that's our system now. But judicial review does not mean the courts have veto power over the political branches. And it certainly doesn't mean that the other branches can't question a decision by the judiciary and even ignore it if they so choose. The branches are co-equal. The judiciary should not have veto power over the other two branches. If I were President in this case, I would ignore the TRO.

Quote:
If not, the role of the judicial branch is to review either the laws passed by the legislative branch, or the actions of the executive branch and rule on the legality of them. If the law or action is within the scope allowed by the Constitution then the court will rule in that way and the government goes its happy way. If the law or action is outside of the scope permitted by the Constitution, then it is struck down.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The decision by Judge Robart is ridiculous. Shouldn't it at least be required that he explain his decision? He didn't. Frankly, I think he should be impeached.

Quote:
Your proposal leans more to the idea of "L'etat, c'est moi" or "If the President does it, it's legal" idea of government and I think you'll find that as a general principle, those have been discarded or found to be incorrect.
On the contrary, your view appears to be more "L'etat, c'est le juge." If some schmoe judge in Seattle, one of literally over 2500 federal trial judges in the US, he can immediately override a Presidential action in which, according to Federal law, the President has plenary authority.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:00 AM   #143
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
I think you missed my question.

What checks and balances do you consider should apply to decisions of the President.

Say a president makes an executive order saying that for the safety of US citizens all guns should be destroyed, all cars should be crushed and all swimming pools filled in.

I am interested in the procedure not the issue. Should there be a means to oppose and stop that order and if so what should it be?
A court would rule it unconstitutional, and then the President would have to decide whether or not to ignore the court's decision. If the President decided to ignore the court's decision, then it would be up to everybody in the executive branch to decide for himself whether or not he agreed with the President that the action was constitutional and that the court was wrong. The legislative branch would also have to make its own determination collectively. If they decided that the President was behaving unconstitutionally, then they could initiate impeachment proceedings. There is also a 25th amendment remedy available to the President's cabinet and the vice-president.

Ultimately, the guarantor of the rights of the people are the people themselves, and those people in power in the government have more influence than the average Joe. If the President did something that was clearly unconstitutional, he would quickly find that he had no support, either politically, or administratively, in his own branch of government.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:02 AM   #144
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,079
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
They should've thought about that one.
They probably did, but it's an impossible task.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:05 AM   #145
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
The judiciary should not have veto power over the other two branches. If I were President in this case, I would ignore the TRO.
Lets say a president makes an illegal order or say one making the president immune to prosecution for rape.

(1) Who gets to decide whether that executive order is allowable?
(2) Who can veto that order given that you think the Judiciary should not be able to?
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:10 AM   #146
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Lets say a president makes an illegal order or say one making the president immune to prosecution for rape.

(1) Who gets to decide whether that executive order is allowable?
(2) Who can veto that order given that you think the Judiciary should not be able to?
(1) Actually nobody. I don't think anybody would have standing to challenge it before the President actually raped somebody. It would also be moot until he did so. It's quite possible that Congress would impeach him. Or that his cabinet would consider him so crazy that they would invoke the 25th amendment remedy.

(2) Other than (1) above, nobody could do anything. If and when the President raped somebody, the Congress would probably move to impeach him. If successful, the President would be removed from office and then be indicted for rape. He would point to his executive order as evidence that he had immunity, and then a court would decide whether or not the executive order was legal and therefore valid. I suspect the court would decide that it was null and void because the President had no authority under the law to pardon himself in advance of an action.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:15 AM   #147
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,160
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
They probably did, but it's an impossible task.
Yeah, I wasn't being serious.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:16 AM   #148
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
A court would rule it unconstitutional,
OK, so you accept that a court has a right to hear and decide on such matters. That appears to be a shift in your position from earlier where you said "The President gets to make his own judgment about such things. It is not the place of the courts, to veto his judgment because they disagree with him."

Quote:
and then the President would have to decide whether or not to ignore the court's decision. If the President decided to ignore the court's decision, then it would be up to everybody in the executive branch to decide for himself whether or not he agreed with the President that the action was constitutional and that the court was wrong.
So where the court has decided that an order is wrong. What do the public servants do, the border guards? Do they follow the court? If not and they follow the executive what is the official procedure the executive undertakes in order for public servants to know to follow the executive order rather than the court.

Quote:
The legislative branch would also have to make its own determination collectively. If they decided that the President was behaving unconstitutionally, then they could initiate impeachment proceedings. There is also a 25th amendment remedy available to the President's cabinet and the vice-president.
In the meantime what happens to the Executive order. Do civil servants follow it?


Quote:
Ultimately, the guarantor of the rights of the people are the people themselves, and those people in power in the government have more influence than the average Joe. If the President did something that was clearly unconstitutional, he would quickly find that he had no support, either politically, or administratively, in his own branch of government.
Who decides whether something is clearly unconstitutional? You have said that a court finding something unconstitutional can be ignored by the president. Indeed you have argued that the court should not be able to decide whether an executive order breached the constitution.

Last edited by Lothian; 7th February 2017 at 07:17 AM.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:22 AM   #149
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
(1) Actually nobody. I don't think anybody would have standing to challenge it before the President actually raped somebody.
Seems you do want an unquestionable dictatorship.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:26 AM   #150
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
OK, so you accept that a court has a right to hear and decide on such matters. That appears to be a shift in your position from earlier where you said "The President gets to make his own judgment about such things. It is not the place of the courts, to veto his judgment because they disagree with him."
No, you're simply misunderstanding my point. The courts can do whatever the hell they want. But, ultimately, if they act in an obviously improper manner, I think the other branches should ignore their orders (and/or impeach the judges responsible). My point is that in this particular case, the judge has obviously acted improperly. He is not ruling based on the law. He is not interpreting and applying the law as it is written and commonly understood. He is seeking to repeal an executive order because he doesn't agree with it on policy grounds. Because his actions are so clearly improper, and so clearly exceed his authority, I find them offensive, and I am here arguing that other people should too and that the executive branch should ignore him. I am also using this situation to highlight the utter hypocrisy of the left and the extent to which the judiciary has become activist.

Trump should probably focus all of his effort to get Gorsuch confirmed as quickly as possible.

Quote:
So where the court has decided that an order is wrong. What do the public servants do, the border guards? Do they follow the court? If not and they follow the executive what is the official procedure the executive undertakes in order for public servants to know to follow the executive order rather than the court.

In the meantime what happens to the Executive order. Do civil servants follow it?
For whatever reason, Trump has decided to obey the order of the court, so there is no conflict. If he had decided to ignore it, I think the people in the executive branch would follow his direction, but there might be people who simply disobeyed it or resigned or whatnot. I actually don't know for sure what would happen. Most people in the bureaucracy are Democrats and therefore probably anti-Trump, so it might be a close call until he has had a chance to purge some of the Democrats from his midst.

Quote:
Who decides whether something is clearly unconstitutional? You have said that a court finding something unconstitutional can be ignored by the president. Indeed you have argued that the court should not be able to decide whether an executive order breached the constitution.
Every citizen has to decide for himself. Ultimately, the real power is in the collective beliefs and actions of the people with guns, which, thankfully, in the US, are the people themselves. If the President decided to ignore a decision by the court that his actions are unconstitutional, he would have to make his case to Congress and the people that he is right and the courts are wrong. Ultimately, everything is political.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:27 AM   #151
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Seems you do want an unquestionable dictatorship.
Uggh. I see I'm wasting my time.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:36 AM   #152
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,160
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Seems you do want an unquestionable dictatorship.
Wait, how does that follow from what he said?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:45 AM   #153
TheGoldcountry
Illuminator
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,297
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Seems you do want an unquestionable dictatorship.
I disagree with sunmaster 90% of the time, but he didn't say that. In fact, he said that he would be impeached.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 07:51 AM   #154
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,079
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Seems you do want an unquestionable dictatorship.
Yeah, no. Under his vision, the President remains accountable to Congress through the impeachment process, and Congress and the President both remain accountable to voters.

I don't agree with sunmaster14 in that I think the system works better with judicial review than without it, but it's delusional to claim that what he seeks is dictatorship. It explicitly isn't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 08:55 AM   #155
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,808
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't think filtering immigrants by religion qualifies as establishing a religion, but this is untested, so maybe. But this:
It would have to, by defining who is a Muslim. It would establish 'Muslim' by a definition it created and enforced. It has no business doing so.



Quote:
This is backwards. It isn't the allowing (or denying) immigration which is the problem, it's the taking noble titles. This says nothing about who the government can permit or forbid to enter the country. And this is basically the same thing as with bribes. It's the taking of the bribe which is illegal, even if it's to do something you're otherwise allowed to do, and even if you don't do what the bribe was for. The bribe itself triggers the law, regardless of what follows. So this cannot be accurately described as a limitation on controlling immigration, it's only a prohibition on accepting noble titles.
In other words, those limits apply to everything the government does including limiting what it can do on immigration. The restrictions the Constitution puts on the government includes immigration and the government does not actually have absolute authority in it.



Quote:
The constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity. And as already mentioned, the due process rights of green card holders plays no part in Robart's decision.

And?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 09:06 AM   #156
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,079
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
It would have to, by defining who is a Muslim. It would establish 'Muslim' by a definition it created and enforced.
That is not what "establishment" means in context. But again, this is untested by the courts.

Quote:
In other words, those limits apply to everything the government does including limiting what it can do on immigration.
No. That changes nothing about what government can do on immigration. It only changes what government can do on accepting titles of nobility. Limitations on the latter do nothing to change what can be done on the former. They are separate issues. Trying to tie them together is like saying I don't have freedom of the press because I can't murder someone and write my opinions with their blood.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 11:16 AM   #157
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,709
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Your snark makes you look foolish.

Regardless, courts are not "for" judicial review. Courts are "for" deciding cases in controversy according to the law, and applying it in a wide range of situations in which disputes between various entities arise. Judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor did people like Thomas Jefferson want the courts to have such power. The Supreme Court seized this power for itself in the Marbury v. Madison decision. Fine, that's our system now. But judicial review does not mean the courts have veto power over the political branches. And it certainly doesn't mean that the other branches can't question a decision by the judiciary and even ignore it if they so choose. The branches are co-equal. The judiciary should not have veto power over the other two branches. If I were President in this case, I would ignore the TRO.
Essentially, the judicial branch does have a veto power over the other two, as it can rule that either laws (or parts of laws), or the way in which the laws are implemented are contrary to the Constitution and therefore are of no force and effect. What the judicial branch however relies on the other two branches for the ability to bring its rulings into effect and for the funding to actually function. By removing any of the three branches, for example by declaring that the judiciary has no authority to declare a law, etc ultra vires, then a fairly stable system is rendered unstable.

The Executive branch is fully capable of ignoring the ruling of the judicial branch. Equally, the Executive branch is also able to ignore laws created by the legislative branch as well. The Legislative Branch can deliberately pass laws that run contrary to the constitution as interpreted by the judicial branch Doing any of this calls into question the foundations of how we picture society running, and is definitely running counter to the intent of the system.

Quote:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The decision by Judge Robart is ridiculous. Shouldn't it at least be required that he explain his decision? He didn't. Frankly, I think he should be impeached.
Given that he's ordered a full hearing, at which a final ruling will be reached, and therefore only suspended the effect of the EO until a final ruling can be reached, it is unlikely this reaches the level you are looking at. However, if you feel strongly enough about it - propose that the appropriate proceedings be commenced by the necessary review body. In Canada, a Federal Court Judge would be subject to a review by the Attorney General for Canada and ultimately the Governor General (HMTQ if she's in-country) and it would involve the presentation of evidence and rebuttal by both sides - I'm reasonably certain that a similar process has been established in the US.

Quote:
On the contrary, your view appears to be more "L'etat, c'est le juge." If some schmoe judge in Seattle, one of literally over 2500 federal trial judges in the US, he can immediately override a Presidential action in which, according to Federal law, the President has plenary authority.
The judge in this case has ordered a full hearing - if the evidence presented causes the presiding judge to rule in favour of the Government then that's the way the system works. Claiming that one branch of the government can't do its job because it is not showing proper respect to one of the other branches is undermining your system.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 11:25 AM   #158
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,413
I think tha sunmasters whole philosophy is that the will of the leader is the supreme law and is above all other law.....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 11:32 AM   #159
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 24,724
Ah, the pro-Trump brigade is preparing their anti-judicial-review arguments, and to side with the Mango Mussolini against SCOTUS.

One more reason why I laugh heartily when Republicans claim to be for "small government."
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2017, 12:38 PM   #160
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,808
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That is not what "establishment" means in context. But again, this is untested by the courts.



No. That changes nothing about what government can do on immigration. It only changes what government can do on accepting titles of nobility. Limitations on the latter do nothing to change what can be done on the former. They are separate issues. Trying to tie them together is like saying I don't have freedom of the press because I can't murder someone and write my opinions with their blood.
Actually...it kind of is. Twice at least.

Deciding who qualifies as 'really' in what religion was a constitutional violation.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.