According to the law I quoted, the question is "Whenever the President finds". You and I, or the courts for that matter, aren't privy to the intelligence information that the President is. The law clearly says it is up to him.
So what other things can he do unilaterally? I thought that the US had specifically designed it's government so that no one person had enough power to control policy. That's the idea of the checks and balances that are such a major concept.
It's not clear to me that this law that you're quoting overrules other pieces of law that would seem to contradict in this particular situation. I guess that's why there's such robust debate around the subject. Just because one law would seem to render something legal, doesn't mean that there aren't other parts that might limit that action further.
This law was written by one of the three branches of our government, the Legislature. It was signed into law by The executive branch (the President), second of our three branches of government. Now comes the 9th Circuit, a tiny part of the third branch, the judiciary, and they think they trump the other two branches?
They interpret law. That is their job. If they find that the other branches of government have acted unlawfully, then yes, I think they do. Isn't that the point of them?
Particularly the higher courts, I would have thought. Lower courts tend to just apply already well established legal principles, whereas the higher courts exist where the interaction between several laws or laws and rights is unclear. In such cases they indeed tend to make decisions about how those situations will be handled, which I suppose gives them a certain amount of power over the other branches.
Immigration in the US is controlled by the Legislature. For whatever reason, the Legislature decided to give this control to the President. And for whatever reason the President found the need to ban travel from some countries.
Sure. And he should have to disclose the reasoning behind the need to ban travel, which he has done. What then if the reasoning is faulty? What if it clashes with some other piece of law? What if the president is banning people from the country to further his own personal interests?
There is such a thing as the spirit of the law. Legally it doesn't mean much, except that if someone like the President can use the specific wording to violate it then that wording will probably be changed. And most governments have no problem finding people guilty of crimes after the fact.
Fortunately, the US has a written constitution that fairly clearly spells out the spirit of the laws of the land, and any that are assessed to be in conflict with the constitution are deemed unconstitutional and struck down. One cannot have a law in the US that conflicts with the constitution.
At best, the executive order requires expert analysis from the courts as to it's legality, which it will receive in due course. It's by no means a slam dunk, and I don't think in a case like this it should be.
No, other people would be allowed to respond. What you wouldn't be allowed to do is to penalise someone for speaking, for instance by firing them from their job.
Why not? If someone calls his boss an [insert many very rude swear words here] I think it's totally reasonable that they'd be fired for that. It's even in most contracts that the business can terminate you for just about any reason they feel like, especially low level contracts.
So why is it that this behaviour should not be allowed? What advantage is there to restricting people like business owners from using their property as they see fit?
And in an absolute freedom of speech you wouldn't want to either, because you can't have absolute freedom of speech unless people agree with the fundamental principles of it, and that is what requires a great deal of tolerance.
You keep saying these words. I don't think you understand that they have a very specific meaning that is not entirely congruous with the literal meaning of the words.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
You have the right to hold any opinion you like, and to express that if you wish. It says nothing about being immune from consequence, nor does it say anything about censoring other people's otherwise legal speech and actions simply because they happen to be in opposition to yours. That would be the ultimate in Special Snowflake Syndrome, expecting your rights and freedom of expression to be upheld at the expense of others.
Because that's what you're asking for. Other people's rights to be violated so that you aren't required to face consequences of poor decisions that you've made.
