You've got somewhere to go, have anything to wear?

[oldsalt1]

Now, back somewhere on topic........

I have to attend a one day driver education course; no idea who else will be there. Although highly doubtful that I'll do so, but I'm considering a skirt for once! Thoughts gentlemen, please.

around September of last year I made a trip to the DMV (I am not sure where you are from But in the US its the Department of Motor Vehicles.) I had to make a change ion my license. I did it in a skirt. I expected the worst. Because you always expect the worst at the DMV. The clerk was at a low desk so she had a full view of my skirt. She was very pleasant it was a pleasant trip She even gave me a compliment on my outfit.
Go for it and enjoy it

[crfriend]

There's no pass/fail and certainly no crawling underneath a vehicle. There is a driving element.

Five years ago I wouldn't have hesitated; but now....

If I do wear a skirt or dress, I'll be sure to post about it as it will be a landmark event.

The main question in this case, from a risk-management perspective, would be, "How dire event would it be if I somehow didn't make the grade?"

If the stakes are high, and not meeting expectations somehow is a possibility -- or a perceived one, then I'd opt for trousers. If, on the other hand, it's low-stakes and, from the sound of it it likely is, then I'd decide spur-of-the-moment before heading out for the thing.

Wearing a skirt can, in no way, affect your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle unless you're already getting something horribly wrong, so we can safely discount that as an issue. The big question would be what the instructor/examiner thinks of you as a person for being "unconventionally attired" and whether that impression could have ramifications later on, and you have no data on that one.

I'd play it by ear and see how you feel that morning. If you're already miserable, likely adding stress to the equation won't make you feel any better.

[crfriend]

AS far as firing the AG I agree with PRESIDENT TRUMP It is her job to enforce the laws of this country.

An executive order is not a law, and even if it was it's part of the Attorney General's remit to fight it until a proper decision can be made by the courts. Recall that going against the Constitution is technically a crime in and of itself, but that hasn't been invoked for decades.

Not pass he personal politically motivated personal opinion on them

I doubt it was "politically motivated". I wonder what the career civil servants in the DOJ are making of this.

This is a matter of Constitutional legality, and if the order is unconstitutional it's unconstitutional. Note that the acting AG's comments specifically mentioned "waiting for judicial clarification". If the thing is constitutional, then enforce it; if it's not -- or even suspected not -- then it's everybody's duty to ignore it until the final judgement is handed down.

We've already allowed the Republic to become an oligarchy. Let's not get caught asleep at the switch again to wake up and find ourselves living in an autocratic regime.

[Ray]

I'm guessing you are from the uk. You can wear a skirt but the course leader can fail you if you have the wrong attitude. You'll probably need to be that little bit more attentive and eager to learn to compensate, but that's it. I have been on such a course - in 2013. It's quite insightful. It has resulted in my modifying my driving. Okay, I still drive at 90mph from time to time, but less than before - and I'm much better in built up areas. Mind you, I speed when cycling - 40 in a 30 limit is not uncommon! Quiet times only, lest you think I'm a Lycra psycho...

[crfriend]

As I'm from the UK, I don't fully understand your legislature; however (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is it not the case that an Executive Order from the President is not a law.

It is not a law, although in some limited instances it can temporarily exist as one. (Only Congress can pass a law.)

The Executive Order is a tool that allows the president to act swiftly when Congress is either not in session or otherwise "out of town", and the tool originated from a time before real-time communication existed. It was never intended to be used the way it is now, and I am amazed that Congress and the Judiciary have allowed it to be so used. Of note is that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to examine these sorts of matters and strike them flat if they fail constitutional muster (which in olden days could take weeks or even months if everybody had to be brought together).

The tool was seldom used through the years and has mainly gathered increased use in the past 35 years to subvert Congress as power has concentrated into the White House and with the president. Recall that the Executive Branch is only one of three branches of the US government and we forget that at our peril. I'll point to 1930s Germany in this regard when power concentrated into the hand of one cadre of individuals; the US is on that slope now.

I also seem to recall in this case that several senior judges questioned the constitutional legality of the said order and that it is to be reviewed.

Correct. There are several appeals already in motion and the Order should rightfully be stayed until those are worked out.

[oldsalt1]

The constitution gives the president the power stop any non US citizen he feels is unfit from entering the country. ..........period
If It is a Muslim Ban how come Muslims from other countries are not affected.

The AG serves at the pleasure of the President

If you were the boss and you made a rule and one of your employees made a big deal about not following it how long would you keep him or her on.

[crfriend]

If you were the boss and you made a rule and one of your employees made a big deal about not following it how long would you keep him or her on.

If the rule was highly likely illegal I'd hold my tongue. The fact that this one decided to act like a spoilt child having a temper-tantrum is what points him up as being unstable. Now I know that there is no rule regarding the maturity-level of the Chief Executive, but it'd sure be nice to have one.

If it was pointed out to me that something I did or suggested contravened law I'd ask for clarification and stand down until that was provided.

See above. Let's not fall asleep at the switch again only to find ourselves living under and autocratic ruler. The framers of the Constitution had a really bad down on monarchs and did their level best to keep one from arising here. They fluffed it, of course, in the long term, but there is no way in creation they could have foreseen what the place has become.

[Darryl]

Interesting little tidbit, if this is what everyone is talking about:

The McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president, whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
"The president may, by proclamation and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, immigrants or non- immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."

Who was president when this was passed? Democrat Harry Truman.

Who do you suppose last used this process? Democrat Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States.
But Carter actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them.
Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution."

Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should or could be refused immigration to OUR country.

Authenticated at: (look under 1952)
http://library.uwb.edu/…/USim…/USimmigr ... ation.html and see http://library.uwb.edu/…/1952_immigrati ... ionality_a…

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

See: https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/na ... es-america

Not sure about the Quran forbidding Muslims to swear allegiance to "X" much less the US Constitution...... Inconclusive opinions, seems to be a matter of interpretation...or fundamentalism versus liberalism or something....

[oldsalt1]

Thank you Darryl I knew there was something official regarding PRESIDENT TRUMP's actions.
CR do you really think that he would propose it if his staff hadn't checked for possible illegality.

If I was a boss and an employee had a problem with something I was doing and came up to me with their concerns I would hear and consider what he had to say. If instead he stood on the lunchroom table and shouted it out to the employees he would be gone before the lunch hour was over. And if you were the boss you would fire him also.

[crfriend]

Thank you Darryl I knew there was something official regarding PRESIDENT TRUMP's actions.
CR do you really think that he would propose it if his staff hadn't checked for possible illegality.

I cede. Screw it, this place is simply too sick to survive. I feel sorry for the children of my friends, for the world they inherit will be a miserable and destitute place.

Bring on the Dictator. Der Furher!

The Constitution has been in abeyance for years now, so this only makes sense.

Bye-bye, USA -- the country of my birth and hopes -- but you're not my country any more; you've been usurped. And you didn't even whimper -- almost as if the old mantra of "Stop rape: Say yes" actually held meaning.

[oldsalt1]

da Dictator is better than DA B---H ever could have been.

If its that bad there is a plane full of Hollywood stars leaving I am sure you can find a seat on it

[Disaffected.citizen]

I'll point to 1930s Germany in this regard when power concentrated into the hand of one cadre of individuals; the US is on that slope now.

This occurred to me many months ago; I just didn't want to be the first to comment.

Indeed, there has been a steady surge of the politically far-right wing in many European countries in the past few years. It'd merely been 80 or so years, back in 2008, for us to forget about, and allow, the economic devastation of The Great Depression to recur. It's merely been 70 or so years since the end of WWII and what are we seeing?

I shudder!

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Further details about Pastor Martin Niemöller. May you reap what you sow!

Unfortunately, we in the UK collectively opted for "Brexit". Now, the reasoning may have been to "get back control", etc, etc... but the significance is that the EU provided stability. We are now seeing the rise of other "exiters" from the Netherlands, France, Germany....

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but the rise of state control, intolerance of minorities, imposition of ideals on others; are we not on a slippery slope?

CR do you really think that he would propose it if his staff hadn't checked for possible illegality.

In truth, yes. Many in the UK quote legislation, which has long since been superseded; I doubt you are immune from the same and those within the corridors of power are just as susceptible to error as us.

Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should or could be refused immigration to OUR country.

I note that Darryl questions this anyway; since the Quran predates modern Constitutions and, indeed, probably didn't have to contend with borders as we now see them, I doubt it forbids in such terms.

From another thread, but salient here:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Ray]

The Immigration and Nationalty Services Act 1965 was designed to supersede the above Act. Provisions that excluded certain classes of immigrants based on their political beliefs were revoked by the Immigration Act of 1990.

Just saying. Amazing what you can find on Wikipedia.

Ray

[Disaffected.citizen]

da Dictator is better than DA B---H ever could have been.

If its that bad there is a plane full of Hollywood stars leaving I am sure you can find a seat on it

What do you mean by DA B---H? Please translate.

[Disaffected.citizen]

I cede.

Please don't.