It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As @timmer mentions, there are 3 branches of Government, and they all have a say, depending on the situation.
Regarding 'the wall':
Yes, ultimately, President Trump will require Congress's assistance to fund the construction, which is estimated to eventually be a $15-$20bn total cost, but only because the 'Federal Government' doesn't have that kind of money for this purpose. The Executive Order asks DHS (Department of Homeland Security) to identify and allocate existing Federal funds for the project. What this means is that DHS can move around existing 'Federal' money which it has for the wall, and this could allow it to start work on it. However, due to the cost, it will need Congress for the remainder of money to finish the wall.
It's important to note that Congress has already passed what's known as the Secure Fence Act of 2000, which authorized 700 miles of 'wall' or fencing on the southern border. 652 miles of that has actually been built (most of it in Arizona) and so the President can continue with the remainder. GOP leaders in both the House and Senate have said that they will work with the Administration to fund the wall, and Paul Ryan, Congressional Majority leader, has said that he will work to get the funding. His support is important.
There are additional hurdles though. For example, the Government does not own all the land along the border. Some is in private citizen's hands. Therefore, the Administration would have to use its right under 'eminent domain' to take the land from the private owners (but it will have to provide them with adequate market value based compensation). There are also likely to be challenges by environmentalists, but the Administration will likely counter that the wall is imperative for national security reasons.
Regarding 'banning Muslims':
It's important to understand that the 'temporary ban' in the Executive Order is not a religious ban. That is being misreported in the press. It is a security ban. There are 40 Muslim countries that are not included in this ban. That distinction is important, because banning on the basis of religion (such as Islam for instance) contravenes the 'Establishment Clause' of the First Amendment of the US constitution and would therefore in fact be illegal. Moreover, banning refugees on the 'basis of religion' would contravene the Geneva Convention. That is not the case with this Order either. It does not ban refugees on the basis of religion. It states that if someone is claiming religious persecution, then they must be of a minority religion. There is a distinction.
The President does not require Congressional approval for this Executive Order. The President has the power to restrict immigration without approval, as long as he does it in a way that doesn't violate the constitution. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the President can restrict any class of aliens he deems 'detrimental to the interests of the United States' without legislation.
The implementation of this particular Order was botched badly. Instructions were unclear, the Order itself was written in a vague fashion and did not clarify how to deal with important components, including 'green card holders', 'dual citizens' etc. Moreover, it was apparently drafted without consulting with Federal Agencies. While this is not a requirement, it is good practice to do so. Why did the Administration take this approach? That's unclear. Was it because they felt another approach would have led to leaks? Maybe. It seems to have been done in a way to create maximum chaos. Perhaps this was the intention. If so, what were they trying to distract attention from?
So bottom line, the Order is not illegal in my view. It also does not require Congressional approval. Constitutional challenges to it will fail. However, it may need to be tweaked to be more clear administratively, because it could face a challenge that it violates 'due process'.
Regarding 'Stopping Obamacare':
The Congress would have to get involved for this one, since they 'write the laws'. They can vote to 'defund' the existing Program, and to an extent they have started to do that via a process known as budget reconciliation.
The President does have the right to issue Executive Orders which can change the way the existing law is applied or interpreted. So he can practically impact the Law without actually repealing it. I believe that some of his Orders in fact do this.
Keep in mind that any new 'replacement' for Obamacare (officially known as The Affordable Care Act) will require Congressional approval.
Yes this is the discussion, the how as opposed to the intent of the EO, however most of these issues, if not all were resolved in the short term.
The government was clearly looking to avoid leaks at very least.
Now they will get to work reviewing the vetting requirements which is the whole point of the exercise.
Politics is often defined as the "art of getting things done"
The most effective or desirable "how" though can be debated till the cows come home.
"whether to get something done" often involves a fundamental disconnect between competing guiding principles or even ideologies, which is why we have elections every two years, so the people might delegate to those campaigning for their vote.
Ultimately the U.S. constitution is the final arbiter.
One of your best tools as a politician is, do know the rules of the game.
He is expected to be confirmed, but it's likely that it could be a contentious process, since pro-choice groups will likely be concerned. There is also a possibility that Democrats may launch a filibuster, which will mean that Judge Gorsuch may require a supermajority (or 60 votes) for confirmation.
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/511850519/who-is-neil-gorsuch-trumps-first-pick-for-the-supreme-court
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/
I find myself nostalgic at this point.... :))
From the npr piece
"The selection fulfills an early campaign promise by Trump to nominate a solidly conservative judge with a record of strictly interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Gorsuch, 49, sailed through an earlier confirmation process for a spot on the federal appeals court in Denver.
Only weeks after his nomination in 2006, the Senate confirmed him by voice vote. The American Bar Association rated him as "unanimously well qualified" at the time.
Gorsuch has a sterling legal pedigree. He clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He also served as a clerk on the second most important appeals court in the country, in Washington D.C., for conservative Judge David Sentelle.
Like Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he is in line to replace, Gorsuch has cultivated a reputation as a memorable and clear author of legal opinions. He also considers himself to be an originalist.Lawyers who practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where Gorsuch currently works, said he is a popular and approachable judge."
A good solid choice. I especially note the underlined bits, which I interpret to mean he will be inclined to default legislative competence to the States.
In other words a decentralized approach as opposed to an activist approach.
In essence, this means relying on the text, and only the text of the law when making decisions. Given any law is designed to be applied generally and in the majority of cases, and because specific situations are impossible to fully contemplate when drafting a law, some (including Aristotle) believed that a Judge must consider the 'intent' of the law when applying it in a specific circumstance. In contrast, textualists on the other hand don't attempt to infer intent, claiming that it's impossible to properly do that. They believe that anyone attempting to infer intent is only bringing their own political bias into it. So textualists strictly apply only what is directly written.
Judge Gorsuch's philosophy is captured in a tribute he gave to Justice Scalia:
"Judges should instead strive (if humanly and so imperfectly) to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be — not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best. As Justice Scalia put it, “if you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir
This is a fascinating subject for me, because it explains controversial past decisions, including Citizen's United and even the furor over the recent Immigration Executive Order. On a strict reading of the Executive Order, it is not a muslim ban. However, if one attempts to ascribe intent, then one can look at the Executive Order differently, as some appear to be doing on the left.
EDIT: In a nutshell, I read this as follows: Textualists belive in the 'letter of the law' rather than the 'spirit', primarily because they don't believe that the 'spirit' can be objectively determined. It will always be subject to bias in their view. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-17/scalia-s-classic-textualism-will-be-his-legacy
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-16/justice-scalia-the-last-originalist
Strictly the 'muslim ban' isn't a muslim ban, but 'muslim ban from 7 countries' (as I understand Christians are exempt). Factually countries of which none have committed terrorist attacks on American soil. Funnily, those muslims countries from which terrorsits have come (noteably Saudi Arabia) haven't been affected. So the intent of the ban is a bit hard to fathom. Banning people from random countries doesn't stop terrorism.
And then, with the hightening tensions in the South China Sea, you might want to know what Bannon was saying about the area there not too long ago:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2017/02/trump-advisor-steve-bannon-warned-of-war-against-china.html
As I've mentioned previously, these 7 countries are on a pre-existing State Department and Congressional list which indicates that they are 'countries of concern' that require tighter vetting before issuance of visas.
As mentioned previously also, the ban is temporary (90 days) until Homeland Security can tighten up the vetting procedures and ensure that information provisions are as expected. These previously identified countries are being used as the testing ground for the new vetting & information provision mechanisms, which will then likely be rolled out to immigrants from other nations. Such a roll out will likely involve Congressional discussion. So those hoping for Saudi Arabia to eventually be on the list may in fact get their wish.
Regarding the South China Sea: In my view conflict with China is inevitable given the current trajectory of their behaviour. Either they desist, or confrontation will ensue.
I'm including a report from the Council on Foreign Relations summarizing the key points. It's ok to dislike Bannon if one wants. Everyone is entitled to their political affiliation. However, the situation is not of his creating and it must be addressed quickly, either through diplomatic (preferable) or other means. America's allies (including Japan, The Phillippines and Vietnam) expect it.
"U.S. interests in the South China Sea include freedom of navigation, unimpeded passage for commercial shipping, and peaceful resolution of territorial disputes according to international law. Failure to respond to Chinese coercion or use of force could damage U.S. credibility, not only in Southeast Asia, but also in Japan, where anxiety about intensified activity by Chinese military and paramilitary forces is growing."
"Although China may have moderated some of its intimidation tactics for now, it continues to seek greater control over the sea and airspace in the South China Sea. Moreover, various attempts to persuade China, along with the other claimants, to freeze destabilizing behavior such as land reclamation have not succeeded. Beijing continues to drag its feet on negotiating a binding code of conduct (CoC) with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and has rejected Manila's attempt to resolve its territorial dispute through arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)."
"The United States should be prepared to respond to future Chinese coercive acts including using U.S. naval forces to deter China's continuing use of "white hulled" paramilitary vessels."
http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/conflict-south-china-sea/p36377
http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/chinas-maritime-disputes/p31345#!/?cid=otr-marketing_use-china_sea_InfoGuide
The end game is review and revamping of the vetting process.
The 7 countries were yes identified by the previous admin, as you say on State Dept and congressional lists.
The reason that there is so much misinformation, I think is combo of willful misrepresentation by political enemies ( which is to be expected given the toxic political climate) sloppy reporting, both willul and lazy, which is a sad indictment of the declining state of journalism, and then of course the usual broken telephone eg "Muslim ban"
But this is handy term, as it jives nicely, with those driving an anti-Trump narrative.
There are huge swaths of the public that get all their news from talking donkeys on TV, or their favourite web bloggers or you-tubers.
I don't have this problem. I read the National Post everyday.
There are plenty of other established, respectable big market dailies on-line, that can still report the news. Many in fact are serving up the same AP or Reuters wire articles.
Even reading the New York Times everyday will keep one accurately informed.
The paper can still report the facts of a story,as it knows them at least, even if it's editorial stance is polluted by IMO, intellectually weak liberal bias.
TV news reporting though,beyond the local level, has become a joke.
Some of these anchors and reporters that drone on, oh so earnestly, are lacing their reportage, with editorial bias, and they don't even know it.
That's how bad it is.
And your views are totally unbiased. Let face it the US got their president who is basically a takeover for the big business and we are already seeing the outlines for a society in which profit comes first and there rest way behind.
The U.S. Constitution is actually a conservative's wet dream.
The Canadian Constitution not so much.eg the preamble , "peace order and good government" Practically a recipe for the nanny state.
Compare with "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
==
I don't mind a media bias, in fact I prefer it in the editorial coverage, but not when they are feigning objective reportage, but I am not even sure that is the problem so much.
Most TV reporters, I don't even think know the difference.
They can't construct objective reporting. The environments that they work in, are so agenda driven, that they default to the prevailing winds.
This keeps them employed.
Certainly there will be financial incentives for businesses & shareholders, in the form of reduced taxation and regulations (including the announcement today of an Executive Order to review the Dodd Frank Act, which was enacted after the financial crisis of 2008). However, there will also be Government investment, including in infrastructure, which should create employment. Additionally, the President seems to be using the bully pulpit to forge a culture that will encourage businesses to hire more Americans & buy American. An apparent neo-mercantilist trade policy may facilitate this. While it's likely that this approach will cause the cost of some imported goods will go up, it's probably a small price to pay for higher American employment, and it can be managed by targeted tax incentives on 'necessity' products. Avocados, Tequila & Corona from Mexico don't qualify I'm afraid, but bananas and oranges should.
This is a Republican President after all, and so his overall outlook will favour decentralization & incentivizing business to make profit. He will allow the market to work, while nudging the economy towards a much needed inflationary trajectory.
The risks of this new policy approach are:
1) that the Federal Reserve Bank raises rates faster and higher than previously expected, which could choke off any employment gains, and
2) a higher US $, which could negatively impact exporters.
Regarding the 2nd point: trade as a % of GDP is much lower in the US in comparison to other countries like Canada or Japan though, and therefore it won't be as negatively impacted by a higher $ as a smaller country would.
There is also the question of the budget deficit, which will explode further with the tax cuts and proposed infrastructure expenditure, unless the Cabinet heads can find efficiencies within the Departments they lead, and unless 'tax loopholes' are tightened. Both have been promised by the new Administration & I look forward to seeing what they come up with on this front.
I fully agree.
But you ARE right about yourself. :) A Sith Lord would tremble with nervous frustration when realising you are so much more evil than even the Dark Side of the Force seems to consider acceptable.
Some of the same crowd appear to making incorrect comparisons to AH this time out as well.
The author of the Art of the Deal on the other hand is being confused with the author of Mein Kampf.
Both assumptions are/were incorrect.
O:-)
Trump will save us from Hillarykind
Adolph was a goose-stepping toad despised by even the worst of Hillarykind.
Who is the "us"?
Right-wingers who don't actually live in the U.S.
Nothing like Buffalo chicken wings either.
Speaking of the Queen City, Queen Pia has transferred her crown.
The new Queen of the Universe, the lovely Iris Mittenaere -only the second French winner ever! May she reign peace and harmony across the galaxy
Iris was born North of France in a town called Lille. Mittenaere has kept herself busy the last 5 years by pursuing her degree in Dental Surgery. She has always been fond of extreme sports, travelling the world and cooking new French dishes. She describes herself as fresh, funny and caring. She enjoys making others happy, especially when volunteering at Bienvenue-Tongasoa and Les Bonnes Fées. She wants to advocate for dental and oral hygiene.
===Yes do brush and floss everyday. Miss Universe wishes it so!!
Miss Universe is Spider girl
Miss Universe is modest
Miss Universe rests :)
Don't they have Ebay in your area? :P
:))
Surely in-person cross border shopping is helpful to the US economy (particularly places like Buffalo)? Unless we are advocating for an open southern border and a closed northern one, which I'm afraid is the kind of lunacy that might just occur, given the volatile mindset of some these days.
PS: Miss France/Universe is a worthy winner imho. This is one dental appointment most would pay to keep.