Sorry, but this sounds backwards; instead of relying on HN comments for your information, I recommend instead listening to the CA9 proceedings --- which, once again, are largely about how the analysis you just provided is inadequate.
Section (f) of 1182 has been quoted in
this case, including by me in this thread.
So to address one of your claims,
Q. Does 1152 limit, modify, constrain,
weaken section (f) of 1182?
A. Apparently a little: 1152 has in part:
> (A) Except as specifically provided in
paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27),
1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title,
no person shall receive any preference or
priority or be discriminated against in
the issuance of an immigrant visa because
of the person’s race, sex, nationality,
place of birth, or place of residence.
But clearly the part of this law with
"nationality, place of birth, or place of
residence" is nonsense because just try to
get into the US if you are from North
Korea or Iran. Lots of luck! One of the
judges mentioned this point.
Next, if the US denies a Visa to a US
alien outside of the US based on some of
"race, sex, nationality, place of birth,
or place of residence", does that person
have standing to sue in the US courts?
I doubt it. Why not? The US Constitution
does not provide legal right to US aliens
outside of the US.
The law 1182 is mostly about the POTUS
protecting the US, and 1152 doesn't
restrict the POTUS from protecting the US
as in 1182.
The court kept asking if the POTUS could
block all Muslims?
Apparently 1152 and 1182 don't say he
can't. E.g., the POTUS might notice that
radical Islamic terrorism is a threat to
the US, that all radical Islamist
terrorists are Muslims, and that until he
can tell the difference between a safe
Muslim and a dangerous one he can block
them all.
Maybe the 9th Circuit would like to spend
a few years in legal cases on that point.
To help such a case, when some e-coli is
detected in a four ounce sample of 10 tons
of hamburger, we block all 10 tons.
In line with section (f) of 1182, The
POTUS might notice lots of evidence that
lots of Muslims believe that their
religion demands that they regard everyone
else as an infidel and kill or convert
them and, thus, admitted to the US would
be a risk to US national security. Or, a
violent religion is not just a religion
but is violent and can be banned from the
US because it is violent even though its
practitioners believe it is a religion.
The hearing had lots of wacko nonsense:
(1) E.g., suppose I'm in the burka
business; the Trump executive order (EO)
will reduce the number of Muslim customers
for my business; so, I have standing to
challenge the EO as harmful to my
business. The EO should be blocked until
we have a court case where I can show the
damages to my business.
Nonsense.
(2) The establishment clause is
> Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;
So, in Yemen I create a new religion
that worships death for everyone else,
claim that the EO blocks my "free
exercise" of my religion in the US; thus
the EO should be struck down as
unconstitutional.
Gads.
(3) The judicial role is to say what the
law says.
So, each time the POTUS wants to use a
law, we need to have long legal cases to
question in court what the heck the law
means.
So, the POTUS can't use a law unless every
possible wacko objection to the law has
spent months in the courts and been struck
down.
So, we don't have any laws at all until,
one law at a time, the Judicial Branch has
their say, modifications, vetoes, etc.?
More nonsense.
(4) Can't just block all Muslim aliens
outside the US from entering the US
because, as mentioned in the hearing,
there is "religious motivation".
Nonsense.
The law 1182 says that he can block people
for reasons he "deems" .... That's darned
broad.
There is nothing in the US Constitution
that says that aliens outside the US have
rights, i.e., a right to have their
religion ignored when they want to enter
the US. Instead, both current practice,
e.g., keeping people from North Korea out
in spite of 1152, from 1182 and "deems"
the US can block immigrants on eye color,
ability to run a 100 yard dash, or
anything or nothing. Aliens outside the
US have zip, zilch, and zero rights under
the US Constitution.
Apparently the courts want to claim that
some huge range of legal cases can change
the meanings of all the laws passed by
Congress. There be monsters and chaos.
In that case, in general, the POTUS can't
do anything because anything he does might
hurt someone; for each POTUS action legal
cases could go on for years.
Nonsense.
Net, so far the most reasonable
explanation is that this whole EO case and
its appeal is a bunch of lawyers making a
mess just so that they can stick it to
Trump -- tie him up in endless legal
nonsense -- because they don't like him.
Maybe Trump's approach now is to have some
major fraction of all the best lawyers in
DC write him a new EO that not even the
9th Circuit dare question.
If you consider the establishment clause and the concept of judicial review of the actions of Congress and the President to be nonsense, you can expect to be consistently disappointed in the sensibility of the functioning of government in the United States.
Resolving either complaint will likely require a constitutional amendment; the Establishment Clause is literally a clause in the US constitution, and the judiciary's role in interpreting the law and in deciding when a statute or regulation is contrary to the Constitution has been practiced throughout the entire history of the US since the Constitution's ratification.
> If you consider the establishment clause
and the concept of judicial review of the
actions of Congress and the President to
be nonsense,
I don't, and I never so claimed.
You misrepresented what I wrote to set up
a false straw man in order to knock it
down.
Just read again what the heck I wrote.
But just for you, again, once again, over
again, yet again, one more time,
I did claim, e.g., that saying that the
establishment clause on "free exercise" of
a religion basically forces the US to
admit a Muslim is nonsense.
Or clearly the context of the US
Constitution is people inside the US,
mostly US citizens. That some Muslim
alien in Yemen wants to immigrate is
irrelevant.
For judicial review, sure, but in this
case 1182 is so crystal clear that
supporting the TRO against the EO
is nonsense.
Or, 1182 says that the POTUS has
essentially unlimited powers to keep US
aliens out of the US. That an EO to keep
out US alien Muslims in Yemen might deny a
US university a speaker from Yemen,
disappoint a US woman expecting to marry a
man from Yemen, hurt some US burka
clothing business due to fewer Muslim
customers in the US are all just
irrelevant; no way did the founding
fathers or the authors of 1182 think of
such distant side effects; issuing a TRO
against such an EO is nonsense.
Or the university, the woman, and the
owner of the burka clothing business
needed to think ahead that they were
counting on US aliens outside the US being
able to enter the US, and there was no
such guarantee.
Again, once again, over again, yet again,
one more time, if consider such obscure
indirect effects, side effects, secondary,
tertiary, ..., effects, then no action on
anything will be possible.
E.g., I could ask for a TRO to keep Trump
from using Air Force One because the
amount of jet fuel it burns will tend to
raise the price of gasoline for me and,
thus, reduce what I can buy for myself.
Gee, I should file a class action with
plaintiffs all over the country! Yup,
that would be such an indirect effect.
But such a TRO would be nonsense.
I better not come up with more such
examples or the 9th Circuit will be
supporting such TROs.
Law 1182 is just crystal clear. Making
that law look complicated -- e.g., that
some university may have to cancel a
lecture from a speaker who can't enter the
US -- is just being really mixed up
between the ears.
Again, the believable explanation is that
those two courts out west just wanted to
stick it to Trump, to show that the
Judicial branch could, anytime it wanted
to, so tie up Trump in legal cases that he
couldn't even have a sandwich for lunch.
That, from what I wrote you wrote
> If you consider the establishment clause
and the concept of judicial review of the
actions of Congress and the President to
be nonsense,
shows that you were deliberately
misreading what I wrote. Why? Basically
you hate Trump and want to fight with me.
I'm being clear, rational, and objective,
and you are just flailing away in a
political fight.
Why do you hate Trump? A lot of people
do. Why? The Hillary campaign spent
about $1 billion and the MSM went along
passing out just dirty, but unsupported
and totally false, propaganda about Trump,
and a lot of people believed a lot of it.
The people had either to (A) believe some
of the propaganda or (B) treat as sewage
to be flushed nearly everything they heard
from the Hillary campaign and the MSM.
Case (B) required flushing so much that it
was scary; so people believed (A).
The Jefferson remarks show that we should
accept that at times nearly everything
from the MSM can be just sewage.
A lot of people really swallowed that
Hillary-MSM propaganda, were so convinced
that after Trump won they wanted to
scream, throw things, leave the US, etc.
They really, really believed that
propaganda.
All such people have to do is just review
what objections they have with Trump and,
for each, find some solid evidence. At
the end of that review, they will have
discovered that they have essentially no
evidence at all for anything significantly
wrong with Trump.
E.g., in this thread, on the claim that
Trump is a racist, I gave the URL of the
story on his efforts at Palm Beach. I got
an answer back that there is plenty of
evidence that Trump is racist. I asked
for some such evidence, and so far I've
received none. No wonder: I paid fairly
close attention to the election, and I saw
no such evidence at all solid.
Other times on this thread I asked for
evidence of something bad about Trump and
didn't get any.
In a sense, the TRO on the EO is really
good news: If that is the strongest shots
the Trump enemies can fire, then Trump
must be squeaky clean.
