An EO must still, theoretically at least, conform to the constitution and any laws passed. Otherwise the Judge in Washington state (I think it was) couldn't have suspended the immigration EO.
It's actually more like a Judge making common law, in that it can only exist in the vacuum left by lack of legislation or constitutional coverage. If there is legislation that says "all houses must be painted red", and that legislation is held up as constitutional, the president can't enforce an EO that says that all houses must be blue. Sure, he could issue it, but it wouldn't be legally enforceable.
At least, that's my understanding, usual disclaimers (IANAL, IAN SCOTUS etc.) apply.
bah, should have added this to original reply, but no edit.
Get a supply of business cards for a lawyer, and if they ever speak to you, hand them the card and say "speak to my lawyer - BTW he doesn't have a telephone or email address, you'll have to arrange an appointment to speak to them via postal mail or fax".
Does this mean if an agent doesn't like his daughters date he can screw with the guy? If he's teed off at his girl or ex he can mess with them? If his neighbor is married to a foreigner he can look them up?
TL:DR it's par for the course.
Of course they can, and have since day dot of the existence of any such body.
Police have done it for ever, staff at intelligence agencies, Attorney General's staff, DA's, Sheriff's (both the US-style Sheriff and the 'old times' Sheriff of Nottingham-type Sheriffs) and other positions that give access to such information/powers.
It is illegal in most places for 'the authorities' to do that. But in many departments it's one of those nudge-nudge-wink-wink type situations, as long as you aren't too obvious about it it's ignored and swept under the rug. In others, it might be a sackable (even indictable) offense, but if there is no oversight or monitoring in place (if you don't audit accesses to records, you'll never know) then it's never found out.
There were articles on TD a couple years ago about the NSA/CIA having a term for it, LOVINT ("love" intelligence, a play on the term intelligence agencies have for Human Intelligence, that is actual spies/informants on the ground, HUMINT, and Signals Intelligence, that is interception of communications, SIGINT, and the other xxxINT terms). An employee would look up the backgrounds of loved ones, family, partners, potential love interests etc. And they were only found out because THEY came forward to their auditors that they had done it (guilty conscience - they are actually the ones who we want to keep in the agencies), not because they were "found out" by their auditing systems.
What information mentioned do you consider non-public?
From the TD article (without even going to linked references):
third-party records (email, phone, banking, etc.) [paragraph 4]
traces the subject’s travel history through Department of State visa and passport records, a Customs and Border Protection database [3rd quote block]
records held by the ATF, CIA, and NSA. [paragraph 7]
Re: Re: Guess the highest bidder hasn't stepped forth yet.
Don't make up stupid complaints completely unsupported by evidence.
Interesting, you've managed to do exactly what you're complaining about in your very next sentence (emphasis in original changed to bold instead of italics as markdown has made the whole quote italics!):
Everybody on the left has been doing this, and they are making themselves look ridiculous.
The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong.
The anti-police atmosphere is a result of the anti-constitution attitudes and practices of the police departments - they've brought it on themselves.
The police, unions and so on keep using phrases like "police and public partnership".
Well, I'm sorry, but there is no partnership involved.
The police are public servants, they are there to serve the people. They are not our partners, they are our subordinates.
Unfortunately, they have gotten above themselves and view themselves as the masters, the ones in charge, the ones who make the rules. But like any employee, servant, subordinate who has elevated themselves above their actual bosses, employers, they need to be smacked down and put back in their place. Or let go to find a job that better suits them.
> It's pretty clear that Pallante was removed from her job because she had actively, and publicly, reached out to Congress to ask that she no longer have to report to Hayden. That seems like fairly basic insubordination and a fairly standard reason why a boss might fire you.
That is not insubordination. Insubordination is willfully disobeying a lawful (legal, ethical, within the authority of the one giving the order, and within the scope of duties of the one being ordered) order.
This was internal politics that backfired on Pallante, who had to wear the consequences of failure.
Uber could have made travel to and from the airport free for the period of the taxi strike, with Uber paying the drivers their normal commission out of Ubers own pocket to cover the drivers expenses so the company, not the drivers, is paying for the free trips.
Are immigration courts actually full courts of law as most people would think of as a court of law? Operating under the various rules of procedure we hear about courts operating under?
Maybe "Immigration Court" is a label and not an actual statement that they are a what most would consider a court. Which is probably why they aren't article 3 judges, because they are not a body that requires judges.
On the post: Trump Says There's 'No Reason' To Scale Back Asset Forfeiture; Threatens Career Of Senator Backing Forfeiture Reform
Re: Loofa-faced-shit-gibbon-in-chief
On the post: The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump
Re: Re: This is why...
It's more like:
On the post: The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump
Re: Rule by Decree
An EO must still, theoretically at least, conform to the constitution and any laws passed. Otherwise the Judge in Washington state (I think it was) couldn't have suspended the immigration EO.
It's actually more like a Judge making common law, in that it can only exist in the vacuum left by lack of legislation or constitutional coverage. If there is legislation that says "all houses must be painted red", and that legislation is held up as constitutional, the president can't enforce an EO that says that all houses must be blue. Sure, he could issue it, but it wouldn't be legally enforceable.
At least, that's my understanding, usual disclaimers (IANAL, IAN SCOTUS etc.) apply.
On the post: FBI Changes FOIA Policies, Tries To Route More Requesters To Fax Machines, Mailboxes
Re: Counter-Action
Get a supply of business cards for a lawyer, and if they ever speak to you, hand them the card and say "speak to my lawyer - BTW he doesn't have a telephone or email address, you'll have to arrange an appointment to speak to them via postal mail or fax".
On the post: FBI Changes FOIA Policies, Tries To Route More Requesters To Fax Machines, Mailboxes
Re: Counter-Action
AFAIK, there is no law that requires you to answer the door when someone knocks on it.
On the post: Congress Tries Once Again To Require Warrants To Search Emails
Re: Abandoned Email
Perhaps it's not abandoned on an email server, it's actually stored in my copyright-content repository?
On the post: The FBI Can Engage In All Sorts Of Surveillance And Snooping Without Actually Placing Someone Under Investigation
Re: FBI Snooping
TL:DR it's par for the course.
Of course they can, and have since day dot of the existence of any such body.
Police have done it for ever, staff at intelligence agencies, Attorney General's staff, DA's, Sheriff's (both the US-style Sheriff and the 'old times' Sheriff of Nottingham-type Sheriffs) and other positions that give access to such information/powers.
It is illegal in most places for 'the authorities' to do that. But in many departments it's one of those nudge-nudge-wink-wink type situations, as long as you aren't too obvious about it it's ignored and swept under the rug. In others, it might be a sackable (even indictable) offense, but if there is no oversight or monitoring in place (if you don't audit accesses to records, you'll never know) then it's never found out.
There were articles on TD a couple years ago about the NSA/CIA having a term for it, LOVINT ("love" intelligence, a play on the term intelligence agencies have for Human Intelligence, that is actual spies/informants on the ground, HUMINT, and Signals Intelligence, that is interception of communications, SIGINT, and the other xxxINT terms). An employee would look up the backgrounds of loved ones, family, partners, potential love interests etc. And they were only found out because THEY came forward to their auditors that they had done it (guilty conscience - they are actually the ones who we want to keep in the agencies), not because they were "found out" by their auditing systems.
On the post: The FBI Can Engage In All Sorts Of Surveillance And Snooping Without Actually Placing Someone Under Investigation
Re: Re: Re:
From the TD article (without even going to linked references):
third-party records (email, phone, banking, etc.) [paragraph 4]
traces the subject’s travel history through Department of State visa and passport records, a Customs and Border Protection database [3rd quote block]
On the post: Windows DRM: Now An (Unwitting) Ally In Efforts To Expose Anonymous Tor Users
DRM isn't to protect the users...
This is a perfect demonstration of how DRM isn't to protect the users, it's about who has control.
And DRM enables the vendor, not the user, to have that control.
On the post: Who The Hell Is Actually In Charge Of The US Patent And Trademark Office?
Re:
On the post: Who The Hell Is Actually In Charge Of The US Patent And Trademark Office?
Re: Re: Guess the highest bidder hasn't stepped forth yet.
Interesting, you've managed to do exactly what you're complaining about in your very next sentence (emphasis in original changed to bold instead of italics as markdown has made the whole quote italics!):
Supporting evidence for "everybody" on the left?
On the post: Basically The Entire Tech Industry Signs Onto A Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Exec Order
Re: Re: Re: Please Head North
Well, until a blizzard knocks out their internet connection so that their Nest thermostat stops working.
On the post: HowStuffWorks Attempts To Explain Why Advertisers Use Super Bowl Euphemisms, But I Have A Simpler Explanation
Re: Soup Bowl
I feel a patent application coming on.
On the post: The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot
On the post: Congress Prepares To Gut Net Neutrality With Bills Pretending To Save It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Police Unions Head To DC To Ask New President, Attorney General To Stop Making Cops Respect The Constitution
If they did their job...
The anti-police atmosphere is a result of the anti-constitution attitudes and practices of the police departments - they've brought it on themselves.
The police, unions and so on keep using phrases like "police and public partnership".
Well, I'm sorry, but there is no partnership involved.
The police are public servants, they are there to serve the people. They are not our partners, they are our subordinates.
Unfortunately, they have gotten above themselves and view themselves as the masters, the ones in charge, the ones who make the rules. But like any employee, servant, subordinate who has elevated themselves above their actual bosses, employers, they need to be smacked down and put back in their place. Or let go to find a job that better suits them.
On the post: Last Chance To Tell The Librarian Of Congress What's Important For A New Register Of Copyrights
not insurbordination
That is not insubordination. Insubordination is willfully disobeying a lawful (legal, ethical, within the authority of the one giving the order, and within the scope of duties of the one being ordered) order.
This was internal politics that backfired on Pallante, who had to wear the consequences of failure.
On the post: Amidst Increased Government Surveillance, Chinese Internet Users Finally Gain Important Online Privacy Protections
Re: "disturbing order on the internet"
"causing a public disturbance"
"disorderly conduct"
"disturbing the peace"
"public nuisance"
On the post: The Massive Overreaction To Uber's Response To JFK Protests
There was another option
On the post: DOJ Blows Redaction Effort; Exposes Immigration Judges Accused Of Misconduct
Re: Why?
Maybe "Immigration Court" is a label and not an actual statement that they are a what most would consider a court. Which is probably why they aren't article 3 judges, because they are not a body that requires judges.
Next >>