Rebuke of Senator Warren & the Travel Ban

I added my name to the petition below my signature block.  In doing so, I was able to add this comment: “I am not a PFAW member.  I generally don't agree with them nor with Elizabeth Warren.  But I strongly agree with them regarding this incident.  Ms. Warren was discussing a potential Cabinet appointment.  Had she disparaged another senator who favored Sessions, silencing would have been appropriate, but not when critiquing a proposed Cabinet appointment.”

The petition automatically identifies you as a PFAW member but I was able to uncheck that box.

You can call your senator at 202-224-3121 if you want to protest the rebuke of Ms. Warren or if you want to support it.

I haven’t emailed you for a long time.  From my past writings, you can surmise that I am not happy with President Trump.  You probably also won’t be surprised that I am unhappy with the response of the Democrats, the press and many of the public.  I support protests but I don’t support a lot of the protest messaging.  Specifically relative to the travel ban:

1.    I think it was not necessary to ban refugees while creating stricter vetting, because existing vetting is, at worst, pretty good and, because, as it is a two-year process, there was no way refugees could rush in before the tougher vetting was implemented.

2.    It was poorly written and discussed.  (Executive orders, like refugees, need an appropriate vetting process.)  President Trump’s cabinet includes people who seem likely to express their opinion if they disagree with him.  If he proceeds without informing them, we all suffer and they may quit their posts.

3.    It is inconsistent with our values and heritage.  Of course there is risk in admitting refugees.  But as a nation and as individuals, we can’t lead our lives in accordance with our principles, without accepting some risk.

4.    By being unnecessarily (at least in some ways) divisive and offensive, it damages our country by making us more divided internally and more disliked externally.

5.    However, I think restrictions on immigration of foreign citizens don’t violate our constitution.  (I think the constitution doesn’t apply to them.  I haven’t checked this out, so I’m admittedly unprepared, but I’m commenting as I’m writing about this petition.)

6.    I also don’t think it is illegal discrimination.  (If it is illegal discrimination, then President Obama’s action against these same 7 countries would seem to be illegal discrimination.)

7.    So why did I agree with President Obama’s action but not this one?  I think it comes down to my support of what I consider to be appropriate profiling. as long as it is done respectfully.  President Obama essentially profiled people from these countries but treated them with respect.  President Trump has profiled them but is treating them disrespectfully.  As noted above, I disagree with President Trump but don’t think this action is unconstitutional or illegal.

8.    In NPR's annotated version of the travel ban executive order (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated), please scroll down to the fourth section of underlined wording.  It is preceded by the words “to the extent permitted by law” which apply to prioritizing “refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is  a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality”.  Although I don’t like that wording, I do not understand how it can be illegal or unconstitutional to instruct people to do something to the extent permitted by law.  If it is implemented in an illegal fashion, the implementation can be challenged but how can that wording in the law be illegal?  I am concerned that none of the many news reports I’ve seen or heard about the travel ban have mentioned this wording in the executive order.  In discussing this with a friend, I understood him to tell me that the wording is unconstitutional, despite “to the extent permitted by law”, because we all know what was meant.  If we permit laws and actions to be interpreted in that fashion, I believe we have destroyed our country.  That interpretation is very scary to me.

Claude

 From: Ben Betz, PFAW [mailto:alerts@pfaw.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:47 PM
To: Claude Thau <ClaudeT@targetins.com>
Subject: Shame on GOP Senators! Stand with Elizabeth Warren >>

Claude, Last night, Senate Republicans misused a rarely enforced senate rule (Rule XIX) to SHUT DOWN criticism of Trump attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. It was a shocking power play by Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans to SILENCE DISSENT within the chamber in their effort to steamroll opposition to Sessions and ram through his confirmation. Sen. Warren read a quote from the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1986, when Sessions was rejected by the majority Republican Senate for a federal judgeship, in which Kennedy called Sessions a “throwback to a shameful era.” Then, Warren began to read a letter from Coretta Scott King that was submitted to the Senate in opposition to Sessions’ 1986 nomination, which stated that Sessions had "used the power of his office as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens" and "to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters." At that point, Sen. Warren was interrupted and reprimanded. Republicans then upheld the rule violation with a 49-43 party-line vote, sidelining Sen. Warren from the rest of the debate and barring her from speaking on the Senate floor until the final vote on Sessions takes place. This is outrageous. Please add your name to our petition now rebuking Senate Republicans and saying you stand with Sen. Warren>> This inappropriate enforcement of this Senate rule is both extreme and hypocritical. All Sen. Warren was doing was quoting a former senator and reading from a letter by the widow of Martin Luther King that had already been in the Senate’s own records. By McConnell’s purported interpretation of this Senate rule, any time a sitting senator is nominated to an executive branch position or court seat, no other senator in the constitutional advise-and-consent process could ever criticize or make a case against that nominee using damaging evidence from the nominee’s own record.  And, in a statement calling out McConnell’s move, Minority Leader Schumer cited these examples of when Republican senators had recently “impugned” their colleagues far worse than Sen. Warren’s accurate reading of others’ quotes about Jeff Sessions: In floor remarks on July 24, 2015, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accused McConnell himself of telling “a flat out lie,” accusing his party’s own Majority Leader of repeatedly lying to every Republican senators as well as the press. In floor remarks on February 1, 2017 -- just one week ago -- Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) “impugned” Sen. Schumer, saying his “tear-jerking performance over the past weekend belongs at the Screen Actors Guild awards, not in a serious discussion of what it takes to keep America safe,” and accused Schumer of “stirring up global hysteria to score political points.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) viciously went after then-Minority Leader Harry Reid in  his floor remarks on May 25, 2016, lamenting how he is “forced to listen to the bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings of the minority leader,” and went on: “Normally, like every other American, I ignore [Sen. Reid’s remarks]. I can't ignore them today, however ... We are delaying it for one reason and one reason only: to protect his own sad, sorry legacy. He now complains in the mornings that the Senate is not in session enough, that our calendar is too short. Whatever you think about that, the happy byproduct of fewer days in session in the Senate is that this institution will be cursed less with his cancerous leadership." Stand up to Senate Republicans’ hypocrisy now -- tell them “shame on you” and that you stand with Sen. Warren>> Sen. Schumer noted, "If the average American heard someone read a letter from Coretta Scott King ... they would not be offended." Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) tweeted, “It is demeaning to the memory of Coretta Scott King and harmful to the process for the Republicans to silence @SenWarren. #LetLizSpeak" Republicans need to hear loud and clear that Americans are watching and we do not accept their shameful abuse of power. Please sign the petition now>> Thanks for speaking out! -- Ben Betz, Online Engagement Director