Hacker News Reader

Comment by elastic_church | Hacker News Reader

> remind me again why, if the constitution gives this power to congress, you believe it's okay for congress to give all of it to the executive branch

Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power? I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D

1 million unemployed in the federal government, upwards of 15 million in the states!

but thats only possible if you believe the Supreme Court's rulings are based on a strict understanding of the constitution they are all reading, or if it is based on the past of least resistance. (its the latter)

the above argument has a thin chance of surviving in 2017

View on HN

> Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power? I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D

Trump's argument is not so much that Congress delegated the executive broad powers to decide eligibility of immigrants and visitors but that the powers are literally "unreviewable" by the courts (see https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/vaed/358386/80-0...., I am not making this up). The response of the judge to that argument was basically "nothing can prevent the courts from reviewing constitutional arguments".

"Do you really want to hinge your case on Congress' ability to delegate power?"

At some point, yes. Your other arguments are basically handwaved into existence.

Don't get me wrong, some of them even have precedent for that handwaving, but i'm always in favor of arguing based on first principles than "well, you guys have fucked this up for 50 years, so no point in changing this now"

"I mean that COULD be a fun court case if you want to have it and make it a constitutional issue, because the whole executive branch, and the executive branches of every single state, would be ripped to shreds :D"

You know, of course, that the whole point of having different branches was ... to have different branches :)

"the above argument has a thin chance of surviving in 2017 "

Probably, but like most other arguments based on judicially created rights, i think others are even more tenuous over time, and are just kicking the can down the road.

See right to privacy, etc.

At some point, it needs to be grounded in the actual text of the constitution, or it just erodes. There is nothing in the constitution granting green card/etc holders any rights directly at all.

This case already happened, specifically in reference to immigration, 70 years ago: see Knauff v. Shaughnessy[0] (1950).

> The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.

[0]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/537/

Yeah, i'm aware. But there's a lot of cases where the constitutional power has been handwaved into existence, and then snuffed out x years later. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com