Should A Woman Be Allowed to hold the office of President of the USA?

[webfact]

U.S. Democrats set bills seeking to overturn Trump travel ban

REUTERS

 

U.S. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas speaks about military issues and his military service at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S. July 18, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. senators tried to force a vote on a bill to rescind President Donald Trump's order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority nations on Monday, but were blocked by a Republican lawmaker.

 

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said she had 27 co-sponsors of a bill to rescind the order Trump signed on Friday, but under Senate rules it takes only one member to prevent a vote.

 

Republican Senator Tom Cotton blocked consideration of the measure.

 

It would have faced a difficult fight for passage in the Senate, where Trump's fellow Republicans hold a 52-48 seat majority.

 

Trump's directive on Friday put a 120-day hold on allowing refugees into the country, an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria and a 90-day bar on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

 

The president argues that his action will protect Americans, but critics say it illegally singles out Muslims, violating U.S. law, and defiles America's historic reputation as a welcoming place for immigrants.

 

More than 160 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation in that chamber to defund and rescind Trump's order. But that measure is unlikely to advance in the House, where Republicans hold a 240-193 seat advantage, larger than their advantage in the Senate.

 

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by James Dalgleish and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-31

[craigt3365]

Don't give up.  Keep trying.

[stevenl]

One member can prevent a vote?

sent using Tapatalk

[IAMHERE]

Democrats want to initiate a bill in congress to let Islamic Terrorist into the country. I want that vote recorded for historical purposes.

[SaintLouisBlues]

2 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Democrats want to initiate a bill in congress to let Islamic Terrorist into the country. I want that vote recorded for historical purposes.

You're saying that votes in Congress are not recorded?

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, IAMHERE said:

Democrats want to initiate a bill in congress to let Islamic Terrorist into the country. I want that vote recorded for historical purposes.

Can you provide a link for that?

[dunroaming]

Of course the democrats and many  republicans are desperately trying to stop the ban.  This is their countries reputation and values that Trump is trying to destroy.  Keep on fighting, the world is supporting your efforts! 

[cncltd1973]

17 hours ago, stevenl said:

One member can prevent a vote?

sent using Tapatalk
 

One of the many shortcomings of the structure of Legislative branch, reducing action to gridlock and rhetoric.

[Ulysses G.]

The Democrats will fail yet again.  The executive order is legal and many Americans support it.

[Jingthing]

20 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

The Democrats will fail yet again.  The executive order is legal and many Americans support it.

Maybe you're wrong. 

The ban on refugees is DISGUSTING. Shame on trump and shame on people that support that. Remember the ship of Jewish refugees that was sent back to die in the holocaust. Never again? Not really. Welcome to trump's "great" America. 

 

Such a  DARK time in American history. 

 

 

Quote

 

Incompetent President vs. United Front

Why Donald Trump is losing the battle to restrict immigration.

Before executing a major policy, experienced and effective political operations lay the necessary groundwork to ensure that when they do have to fight, they will do so on the most favorable ground. First, they engage in extensive behind-the-scenes consultation to understand the landscape, with an eye toward learning about the array of potential consequences. 

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/why_donald_trump_is_losing_the_battle_to_restrict_immigration.html

Edited January 31, 2017 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Maybe you're wrong. 

 

Don't think so. I say it will stand.

 

Trump’s Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal

 

Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added). Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

 

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The Democrats will fail yet again.  The executive order is legal and many Americans support it.

It's not just democrats that are against it.  Many Americans from all political leanings are against it also.  Just a small minority support this.  As shown by the revolt we're seeing.

 

Amazing anybody can support a man who's tearing the country apart and creating a terrible image for the US globally.  And these supporters said Obama was bad at that!  Trump is orders of magnitude worse.

 

This from one of our top trading partners.  Disgusting.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/european-union-trump/index.html

 

Quote

 

The European Union declared the Trump administration a "threat" on Tuesday, laying bare what many Europeans think privately and setting the stage for increased tension between the US and EU.

 

European Union President Donald Tusk's diplomatic bombshell listed the Trump administration as a threat alongside China, Russia, terrorism and radical Islam, adding that "worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable."

 

 

Sadly, he's right....

[stevenl]

One of the many shortcomings of the structure of Legislative branch, reducing action to gridlock and rhetoric.

Then why isn't this tactic used more often?

sent using Tapatalk

[Scott]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Don't think so. I say it will stand.

 

Trump’s Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal

 

Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added). Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

 

The law is a little more complicated that that and there are portions of the law that are contradictory.   That said, as a general rule, the president has very broad discretionary power in the area of immigration and refugees.