Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Court: Due process for people it doesn't apply (Score 1) 56

The circuit court cited the due process clause in respect to lawful permanent residents. The White House had issued instructions that the policy doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents. The district court indicated that the White House might, in the future, change that policy, and if they changed it there would potentially be a due process issue. That sounds like twisted reasoning to me - stay the actual, existing order because some other order which could be issued in the future might be wrong.

They did. As they said, White House counsel can say that the order doesn't apply to permanent residents, but because such a person is not in the chain of command, their statement does not carry the authority that an executive order carries. "The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President... Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments." It isn't enough that "the White House" says the order doesn't apply to certain people; such a change would have to be in an order signed by the president.

The court explicitly declined to comment on the establishment of religion clause. An establishment claim would be interesting- the President also blocked a country which happens to be majority Christian - is that discrimination against Christians? If the majority of the country affected happen to be tall, would that be discrimination against tall people? Interesting.

They did comment on it, they just didn't issue a formal decision (which isn't really their job at this point). They noted that the intent of a law matters (with cited precedent) and that there are serious questions regarding the intent of this executive order. Just because the text of the executive order doesn't have the word "Muslim" in it, the order can still be illegally discriminatory if the intent is to target a certain religion.

Btw I think Trump is a jackass, and I voted against him twice. I also think the law, as written, very clearly allows him to have this policy, even *if* it's a dumb policy. (I know nothing about Yemen, so I can't say whether or not the government there is unwilling or unable to provide documentation for screening).

The law as written can allow whatever it wants, but the courts can still invalidate the law if they decide that it contradicts the Constitution.

Comment Re:Court is to interpret law, not override it (Score 1) 56

If you wish to make a claim that the Constitution overrides this law I'd be glad to discuss that with you. If so, which article of the Constitution do you have in mind?

I'd have to go back and check the Circuit Court's opinion, but I believe it was the Establishment of Religion, Due Process, and (I think) Equal Protection clauses.

Comment Re:Massive Giveaway to Telecoms (Score 4, Informative) 292

...and there would be tax incentives and tax credits for companies building high-speed networks.

Translation: "Let's give billions more taxpayer dollars to the worthless telecoms/cable companies."

That was my initial reaction, too. This will probably turn into federal subsidies for telecom companies without any kind of requirement that the telecom companies actually do what the subsidies were supposed to pay for.

Comment Re:Thanks for reminding us (Score 1) 152

Also, if you don't know who has interest in a property, that's fine. You might not actually have a right to know who has an interest in any property you want to acquire.

I don't know if that's the case in any state in the United States. I think property ownership is a matter of public record.

Comment Re:Threshold (Score 4, Insightful) 409

But by not having a social safety net for everyone, this kind of thing looks like it might ruin the US.

Why is it the government's or society's responsibility to support those that refuse to support themselves?

Because the alternative is that a large number of people will be unable to feed themselves. And one of the major lessons of history is that when large numbers of people have no other way to survive, they turn to robbery or outright revolt. Some of us enjoy living in a modern civilization and would like it to remain that way.

Slashdot Top Deals