The Constitutional Crisis Thread

[_Res Ipsa]

The Andrew Jackson story is a little more complicated than that. Jackson did not defy a federal judge, as Jackson was never ordered to do anything. The state of Georgia defied a court order. Jackson didn't enforce it. He did not threaten the courts. His only recorded comment was in a letter:

the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate

I don't know why the court did not order the U.S. Marshals to enforce the order. After a few months, Georgia did comply.

So I did a some searching. Here is the court order that was issued in Virginia for the people detained at Dulles. https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/ ... signed.pdf The order is crystal clear: "Respondents shall permit lawyers access"

hey man. why is there a distinction in the order for legal residents? is that consistent with the new york order? is this a distinction that would mean that the order does not apply to all detainees? perhaps only green card holders?

I don't know because the file isn't online and I can't find the petition that was filed. It could be that all of the named petitioners were legal permanent residents, and so they would not have had standing to ask for any relief on behalf of non-residents. It could also be that there are some legal or constitutional protections available to legal permanent residents that aren't available to non-residents.

I'll keep looking for the docket online and see if I can figure it out.

The order in New York, I believe, applied to all detainees. I went and looked at that one, too. The order applied to all detainees, not just permanent legal residents. I think that's why some media articles described it as a class action. But I don't see an order on class certification, so its a little confusing. There have been some subsequent filings in that case, but no contempt motion.

[_Mayan Elephant]

I think that's why some media articles described it as a class action. But I don't see an order on class certification, so its a little confusing. There have been some subsequent filings in that case, but no contempt motion.

is there a difference in how a class action is served, compared to the rulings or orders of a filing for specific detainees?

not that it matters. but is there a process difference?

[_Kevin Graham]

Ok I'm going by memory so I had to look up what it was and came up with this:

Marshall had initially opposed Jackson's election to the presidency, and in the Cherokee Indians case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/an ... tory2.html

So Jackson was upset by the order and didn't enforce it when Georgia defied it. Instead, he sent troops to evict the Indians.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think that's why some media articles described it as a class action. But I don't see an order on class certification, so its a little confusing. There have been some subsequent filings in that case, but no contempt motion.

is there a difference in how a class action is served, compared to the rulings or orders of a filing for specific detainees?

not that it matters. but is there a process difference?

If you're talking about serving an order on the defendants/respondents, I don't think there is any difference.

The order in Virginia was a Temporary Restraining Order. A TRO can be issued without advance notice to the other party. I don't know if this one was. Again, the docket will tell us. Under the Federal Rules, a TRO is binding only after the parties have actual notice of the order. So, in this case, if the respondents were represented at the TRO hearing, they had actual notice because notice to the attorney is notice to the client. If they weren't represented, the usual way of giving notice is through serving the order (delivery by a process server). But the rule is actually broader than that -- only actual notice of the order is required. (We generally serve the order because the process server files an affidavit that documents the delivery). So, as soon as the CPB had notice of the order, they were bound by it.

Make sense?

Ok I'm going by memory so I had to look up what it was and came up with this:

Marshall had initially opposed Jackson's election to the presidency, and in the Cherokee Indians case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/an ... tory2.html

So Jackson was upset by the order and didn't enforce it when Georgia defied it. Instead, he sent troops to evict the Indians.

If you check the wiki entry, you'll see that that quote is considered apocryphal.

The case involved missionaries who were jailed in Georgia for living on Cherokee land without being licensed. The convictions were appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the convictions on the basis that Georgia had no jurisdiction to regulate people on Cherokee land. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/31us515 Georgia refused to release the prisoners. I don't think there is any evidence that the federal courts tried to enforce the order.

I don't know what the person who wrote the pbs webpage was smoking. The issue in the case wasn't seizing lands -- it was regulating lands. And the case had nothing to do with gold.

It also had nothing to do with Jackson later removing the Cherokee from their lands, although maybe the gold did....

[_Jersey Girl]

Article about how this all went down.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-team- ... 1485738314

ETA: Says the ban was originally planned to be 30 days, was 90 by the time it was signed. Also the safe zones for Syrian refugees (Trump spoke about this in interview) never appeared in the final draft of the executive order.

[_Res Ipsa]

Article about how this all went down.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-team- ... 1485738314

ETA: Says the ban was originally planned to be 30 days, was 90 by the time it was signed. Also the safe zones for Syrian refugees (Trump spoke about this in interview) never appeared in the final draft of the executive order.

Behind a paywall for me. I'll try to sneak a way in...

[_Jersey Girl]

Not for me. I can copy/paste it here. It's kind of long-ish.

[_Res Ipsa]

Not for me. I can copy/paste it here. It's kind of long-ish.

Naw, let try a cookie less entry.

ETA: nope. Says I have to subscribe. Curse you, Rupert!

[_Jersey Girl]

Just x out of the pay thing. I can post it here. I got stuck in Internet hell for a bit and had to restart.

[_Res Ipsa]

Just x out of the pay thing. I can post it here. I got stuck in Internet hell for a bit and had to restart.

There is no x for me to X out of. If you would post at least the interesting parts, I'd appreciate it.