Kay Serrar wrote:
JSA wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
JSA wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
JSA wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
JSA wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
JSA wrote:
bluemonkeytri wrote:
Technically, he is not in compliance with Section 3(d) of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act:
"(d) Requests by chairperson and ranking member of appropriate congressional committees.—Not later than 120 days after receiving a written request from the chairperson and ranking member of one of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to whether a foreign person has engaged in an activity described in subsection (a), the President shall— [/url]
(1) determine if that person has engaged in such an activity; and
[/url]
(2) submit a report to the chairperson and ranking member of that committee with respect to that determination that includes— [/url]
(A) a statement of whether or not the President imposed or intends to impose sanctions with respect to the person; and
[/url]
(B) if the President imposed or intends to impose sanctions, a description of those sanctions."
Congress specifically added this language to the Global Act (it was not in the original Magnitshy Act) to keep the President from ignoring situations such as this.
That being said, there do not appear to be any penalties in the Act for failure to provide this report.
Bingo! And therein lies the rub! Several Constitutional scholars have already opined that the Separation of Powers provision of the US Constitution prohibits Congress from forcing the Executive to exercise an Executive power. The power to impose sanctions rests upon the Executive and is a discretionary power reserved to that Branch of Government. Not only is the Legislative Branch prohibited from forcing the hand of the Executive, the Legislative Branch cannot require the Executive to "tip his hat" prior to such a decision. So, one could easily argue what Trump is doing is fulfilling his sworn duty as POTUS - to adhere to and defend the Constitution, making any claim he is "breaking the law" or "acting illegally" wholly unsupportable.
Furthermore, the lack of any enforcement mechanism in the law evinces the intent for the "law" to be a "proposed course of action" akin to a resolution, rather than an enforceable criminal or civil "law."
Ah, "several" have "opined." Got it. "Some people say..."
In other words, a
court should determine if the Global Magnitsky Act violated the constitutional separation-of-powers, but until then the Administration is in breach of the law as it stands. Glad we clarified.
No. You really, really need to get more educated on these topics before you spout off in the LR. You sound ridiculous.
is that the best you can come up with?
The burden isn't on me. You made the assertion. You have yet to support that assertion. That is typical for you.
Do you have anything to support your assertion? Anything at all???
My assertion was that the Trump Administration was in breach of the Magnitsky Act. Bluemonkey spelled out the technical part of the law that has been breached, so, yes, that supports my assertion.
Your counter was that "several" have "opined" that that law breaches the Constitution, but that has not been determined by a court. I doubt anything will happen from here, at least pertaining to this issue, so the matter will likely be left as it is. But you have not demonstrated that what I have asserted is incorrect. You just repeated some anonymous people's opinions.
Nope, it doesn't. Regardless of whether the "law" violates the Constitution, the "law" does not contain an enforcement mechanism. That is fact, not opinion, not something that needs to be determined by a court of law. Without an enforcement mechanism, the "law" cannot be asserted to be broken and there is no mechanism for claiming the law was broken or any recourse for charging an individual with same. That is a fact, not opinion, and something that SCOTUS has already ruled upon in other cases. So, no Kay, you have not supported your position.
You appear to be moving the goal posts. First it was that the breached law was unconstitutional (in some people's opinions), and now you're saying "regardless of that" if there is no enforcement mechanism, it's invalid.
Regardless, it seems the law was put in place with no teeth but rather to apply political pressure in circumstances such as this.
I am not moving the goal posts. I made this argument in my very first response. I have highlighted it in the quoted portion above. The fact that you ignored it in my original response does not create a moving goal post now. Rather, it is further evidence of your inability to see all the information presented to you, as your TDS blinders only permit you to see what you want to see.
It's still a "law" and it has still been breached. Those are facts.
Actually, by definition, it is not, which is exactly what I said in my initial response. At best, by definition, it is a "resolution," which is also what I said in my initial response.
Law: the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR