monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Probably the terrorist and whomever helped them in any way.

“We remember our history, and we remember that the borders of this country closed to us in 1924 with very catastrophic consequences during the Holocaust,” Rabbi Jacobs said. “We know that some of the language that’s being used now to stop Muslims from coming in is the same language that was used to stop Jewish refugees from coming.”

A Texas man whose life sentence on drug charges was commuted by former President Obama is back behind bars after cops caught him with more than two pounds of cocaine following a high-speed chase, according to a report.

During his eight years in office, Obama commuted 1,715 prison sentences, more than any other president.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Two Supreme Court opinions, Kleindienst v. Mandel from 1972 and Kerry v. Din from 2015, were given in cases brought by U.S. citizens suing over State Department decisions not to issue visas to particular foreign nationals.

In Kleindienst, American professors claimed the government was violating their First Amendment rights by refusing entry to a radical Belgian journalist; in Kerry, a woman married to a former Taliban member asserted the government was obliged to explain its refusal to grant her husband a visa.

Kleindienst held that the United States Attorney General has the right to refuse somebody's entry to the United States, as he has been empowered to do so in 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

In Kerry, Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion held that there is no constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and that the denial of a visa application does not implicate Fifth Amendment due process protection.

Boston federal district judge Nathaniel Gorton, citing Kleindienst among other cases, declined on Friday to extend a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the Trump policies, writing:

Quote:

The president has exercised his broad authority … to suspend entry of certain aliens purportedly in order to ensure that resources are available to review screening procedures and that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks.

[...]
Republican Congressman Joe Wilson criticised the Speaker's comments, telling BBC Newsnight: “That's very disappointing, because if ever in recent years there's been a more pro-British president of the United States, it's Donald Trump.”

“It's been by his words, his assurances with Prime Minister May of 100% of standing with Nato, and working to create trade relationships.

“But, it's also been symbolic. He was the one who returned Winston Churchill - the bust - to the Oval Office.

“I consider it too, sadly, a slap at the Republican Party. It was the leaders of our party that actually placed the bust of Winston Churchill in the US Capitol Building and we urge all persons to come visit our Capitol Building.”

Downing Street moved to reaffirm its backing for the visit, after the Speaker's fierce intervention, stating: “We look forward to welcoming the president to the UK later this year. The dates and arrangements for the state visit will be worked out in due course.”

Number 10 has insisted it is too early in the process to say if Mr Trump would be offered the honour of addressing MPs and peers in Westminster.

Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage said the Speaker had “insulted” Mr Trump.

“I think the speaker of the House of Commons should be neutral. To have expressed political opinions in the way he did today devalues his great office, is insulting to President Trump,” he told the BBC.

Quote:

Republican Congressman Joe Wilson .... [...]
“But, it's also been symbolic. He was the one who returned Winston Churchill - the bust - to the Oval Office.

Updated 1431 GMT (2231 HKT) January 26, 2017 [...]
There has been some confusion about this bust, and indeed some rumours that it has already been returned. In fact, there are two Churchill busts, both by British modernist sculptor, Sir Jacob Epstein, that have spent time in the White House.

One was a gift from the Wartime Friends of Winston Churchill and accepted by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. The second, owned by the UK Government Art Collection, was loaned by the British Government to President George W. Bush in 2001, while the first bust was being restored.

At the end of President Bush's Presidency in 2009, that second bust returned to the British Ambassador's Residence and the first bust -- fully restored -- was moved outside President Barack Obama's private study in the White House Residence.

Tomorrow, at the request of President Trump's team, the British Government will formally loan the second bust back, and it will resume its place in the Oval Office.

The bust in question, by British sculptor Jacob Epstein, was given to President George W Bush by the British government in 2001 and was placed in the Oval Office. But the statue was not donated, it was simply on loan for Bush’s term in office (a loan which the British government decided to extend when Bush was re-elected in 2004). Churchill disappeared from the White House in 2009, when the loan ended at the same time that Obama moved in.

So how was the White House able to claim in 2012 that the bust was still there? When writing the blogpost, the then communications director Dan Pfeiffer simply neglected to mention the fact that there are two Churchill busts – the one on loan to Bush from 2001 to 2009, and a second bust which the White House has had since the 1960s and still has to this day – a fact which Pfeiffer later had to clarify in an update at the end of the post.

Boris Johnson is wrong to claim that the vanishing Churchill bust symbolizes Obama’s antipathy towards Britain – it was never Obama’s statue to give away. But the White House’s initial claim that the bust was still in the Oval Office was also a convenient spin on the facts.

The Guardian’s David Smith made a confirmed sighting of the other bust – the one given to George W Bush, when he interviewed the outgoing British ambassador in December last year. Sir Peter Westmacott said the bust was only ever on loan as a personal gift from Tony Blair to George W Bush for the duration of his presidency.

“So, to be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed.”

Speaking at his joint press conference with David Cameron in London, President Obama confirmed that there was a bust of Churchill in the White House residence outside of his office, which he saw every day. “I love Churchill,” he said, before describing the lack of space and risk of “clutter” in the Oval Office.

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

People have the right to use their arms for self defense as well.

But the current interpretation isn't derived from the statement itself but on political expedience, pure and simple.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Quote:

It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we (the United States Supreme Court) said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

A fairly commonplace assertion we'll hear from some folks on the right and some on the left is that legal or constitutional questions which are in dispute should not be in dispute at all because the law or the constitution are utterly clear on the matter. This isn't a sensible position, it's just a manifestation of the too common zest for simple answers.

If it were so simple and obvious, the SC would get very few cases as lower courts would have quickly resolved the cases - matters being so clear-cut. And if somehow such cases got up to the SC, then that court's decisions would be pretty uniformly 9-0.

oralloy wrote:

People have the right to use their arms for self defense as well.

And for hunting, farming, recreation, etc. — but those uses weren't enumerated because those were already common uses at the time.

But why is the "well regulated militia" mentioned and none of these other uses?

Every other "right" concerning firearms is derived from this statement

but the only one that can't be taken away is the right to keep and bear arms in connection with use in the militia.

I didn't write the amendment — the document could have used an editor in this case.

The current interpretation isn't derived from the statement itself but on political expedience, pure and simple.

A change in popular sentiment or a recognition of conditions in society to enable a future court to rule differently, as long as a provision concerning use in a well regulated militia can be retained.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Quote:

It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we (the United States Supreme Court) said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.