How the Court works – the basics


Ensuring that EU law is respected throughout the EU is the job of the
Court of Justice of the European Union. But how does it do this? This one institution actually
has two distinct courts. The Court of Justice,
which is the higher court… …and the General Court. The higher court, the Court of Justice, is made up of one judge
from each EU member state. Not all judges hear every single case. Each case is allocated to a chamber. The number of judges present reflects
how important or complicated the case is. The judges are supported
by Advocates General. Like judges, the Advocate General
sits on the bench and hears the parties. They then give their own impartial opinion
on a legal solution to the case, before the judges themselves decide. These chambers deal
with a wide variety of subject matters. A fundamental role of the Court is to
answer questions from national judges about how EU law should be interpreted. This allows all national courts
to apply EU law in the same way. Another of its main functions is to settle disputes that occur
between different EU institutions. The European Commission can also bring
cases against a Member State who it believes has infringed EU law. The General Court has more judges. They too sit in chambers
of different sizes depending on the importance
and complexity of the case. The General Court hears cases
brought by individuals or companies wanting to overturn a decision made
against them by an EU institution. It also deals with cases brought
by Member States against decisions taken by the Commission. This means that, whilst the General Court
hears cases on a wide variety of matters… …cases about trademarks, competition
law, agriculture and anti-terrorist legislation and sanctions feature heavily. Any official language of the EU
can be used in front of both courts… …with the Court providing translation
and interpretation where necessary. Rulings are published in all EU languages,
so that all citizens can read them, and see how the European law protects us.

How do executive orders work? – Christina Greer


On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln legally changed the status
of over 3 million enslaved blacks across ten states from slave to free. His Emancipation Proclamation
wasn’t a law, or a presidential decree. It was an executive order. The framers of the American Constitution
made the power of executive order available to the executive branch. But what exactly is this tool? How does it work? And what is the extent of its power? Well, an executive order isn’t a law,
but it can carry the weight of one. Passing laws involves
a fairly lengthy process. First, a member of Congress proposes
a piece of legislation in the form of a bill. After many committees and revisions, if the bill is approved
by a majority votes in Congress, that is both the House and Senate, the bill is then sent to
the president for signature. If the president signs the bill,
it then becomes a law. An executive order, on the other hand, is something the president issues
without consultation or permission from Congress. They are, however, enforced like laws, and are subject to judicial review
by the court system to make sure they’re within the limits
of the Constitution. That means the courts have the power
to invalidate any executive decisions that they determine are an overreach of
the president in trying to assert power. And once the president leaves office, if his or her successor wants to eliminate
the executive order, they can do so. So when does a president
use an executive order? Sometimes a president feels the need to
exert power without working with Congress, and in times of crisis, quick decisions
can be justified. But most executive orders are not
responses to emergencies. They’re often directed towards
agencies in the federal government in order to expand
or contract their power. Others determine the extent
to which legislation should be enforced. And sometimes, a president may use
an executive order to clarify and help implement a policy
that needs to be easily defined. Some of the most famous executive orders have changed the course
of American history. FDR issued an executive order to establish
the Works Progress Administration, which helped build thousands of roads,
bridges, and parks throughout the country. The WPA also employed
thousands of writers, painters, sculptors, and artists to create works of art
in public spaces. Additionally, Harry Truman used
an executive order to desegregate the armed forces in 1948. And in 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed
an executive order to establish requirements
for nondiscriminatory practices in hiring and employment. Executive orders have often been used
in positive and inclusive ways, but they’ve also been used
to exclude and divide. One of the most notable examples being
FDR’s 1942 executive order. He gave the military authority to target
predominantly Japanese-Americans, as well as German-Americans
and Italian-Americans, in certain regions across the country. This executive order also removed any or
all of those people into military zones, most commonly known as internment camps. Beginning in the early 1960s, each president has issued
roughly 300 executive orders, but FDR issued over 3,500. At the other end of the spectrum, William Henry Harrison never issued
an executive order, probably because his presidency only
lasted 31 days. The U.S. Constitution is somewhat ambiguous
on the extent of the president’s power. That’s resulted in executive orders
expanding over time. For instance, since Lyndon Johnson, presidents have begun issuing orders
to create faith-based initiatives, establish federal agencies, and remove barriers
for scientific research. There are checks and balances
in the U.S. political system. Congress can pass laws to counteract
executive orders, and judges can halt them by deeming them
unconstitutional. But in the time it takes
for those things to happen, an executive order can go into effect and possibly change the course of history,
for better or for worse.

AG Barr making major changes to immigration courts


MILLION CASES. JOINING ME NOW, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT. ART, GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN. HAVE WE FINALLY FOUND A WAY AROUND SOME OF THESE ASYLUM RULES THAT HAVE BEEN SUCH A LURE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?>>WELL, I MEAN, THIS CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING HUGE THAT IS GOING TO HELP, AND I WILL ADD, NOT ONLY IS IT SOMETHING THAT HELPS STOP THESE ASYLUM CLAIMS, BUT PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT DETAINING THESE INDIVIDUALS LONGER, BUT WHAT IT IS GOING TO DO, IT IS GOING TO GIVE IMMIGRATION OFFICERS THE TIME TO TALK TO THESE PEOPLE AND DETERMINE WHO IS AN ACTUAL GUARDIAN OF THESE MINORS AND WHO IS NOT. DAVID: GREAT POINT.>>YOU HAVE GOT TO REMEMBER, THE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION IS BRINGING THESE KIDS KNOWING HEY WITHIN 20 DAYS, WE WILL BE RELEASED, SO WHAT’S HAPPENING IS THEY ARE USING THESE MINORS AS PAWNS FOR THEIR CRIMINAL GAME. WE DON’T KNOW IF SOME OF THESE KIDS ARE ACTUALLY RELATED TO THESE INDIVIDUALS. THIS GIVES IMMIGRATION THE EXTRA TIME SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT IF THESE ARE LEGITIMATE NOT ONLY LEGITIMATE ASYLUM CLAIMS, BUT WE NEED TO SEE IF THEY ARE LEGITIMATELY FAMILY MEMBERS, AND THAT IS IMPORTANT. I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW ANYBODY WOULD AGAINST IT. TO BE AGAINST SOMETHING LIKE THIS MEANS YOU REALLY DON’T CARE ABOUT THESE CHILDREN. DAVID: IT IS EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE LEFT HAS KIDNAPPED THE WHOLE IDEA OF COMPASSION. THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY’RE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE COMPASSION, YET, I THINK IT IS VERY UNCOMPASSIONATE — IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF COMPASSION TO ALLOW CHILDREN TO BE PUT IN THE HAND OF SMUGGLERS, SMUGGLERS WHO ARE NOT RELATED TO THEM.>>DEFINITELY, IT HAS CREATED A MAGNET TO ALLOW THESE INDIVIDUALS, ONE, TO BREAK OUR LAWS, TWO, TO MAKE FALSE CLAIMS TO ASYLUM AND DEFINITELY IT’S PUT KIDS AT RISK. THANK GOD THAT WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX, THAT ARE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS AND REALISTICALLY THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE CREDIT THEY DESERVE, BUT NOT ONLY ARE THEY STOPPING FALSE ASYLUM, THEY ARE SAVING A LOT OF KIDS’ LIVES AND THAT’S IMPORTANT. DAVID: LET’S TALK ABOUT HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS GETTING INVOLVED IN THIS. WE HAVE A TERRIFIC ATTORNEY GENERAL RIGHT NOW WHO IS OPERATING ON SO MANY FRONTS, BUT ONE OF THOSE FRONTS IS IMMIGRATION. HE WANTS TO APPOINT TOUGHER IMMIGRATION JUDGES. APPARENTLY THERE HAVE BEEN JUDGES THAT HAVE BEEN PERFECTLY OKAY WITH A MILLION CASES BACKLOGGED IN THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER JUDGES WHO ARE MUCH TOUGHER, WANT TO SEE THAT CLEARED OUT. WILL THAT HELP?>>I MEAN, I DON’T SEE IT AS THEM APPOINTING TOUGHER JUDGES. I SEE IT AS THEY ARE APPOINTING JUDGES THAT WILL BE EFFICIENT AND GET THE JOB DONE, AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE DONE. THE AMOUNT OF BACKLOGGED CASES IS JUST RIDICULOUS. AND I THINK THE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS HAVE EXPLOITED THAT, AND THEY’VE USED THAT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL BE JUST CAUGHT AND LEASED IN THE COUNTRY — RELEASED IN THE COUNTRY. DAVID: OF COURSE THEY HAVE. BACK HOME AND WHAT INNOCENT U.S. CITIZENS ARE GOING THROUGH AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THIS CRISIS, NOT ONLY THOSE ON THE BORDER, BUT ONCE THE ILLEGALS SPREAD OUT AND DO NOT ACTUALLY GO BACK TO THE CORRIDORS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO AND SETTLE ELSEWHERE. A LOT OF THEM ARE CRIMINALS. NEW DATA FROM THE DOJ ON FEDERAL ARREST OVER ILLEGALS, OVER A 20 YEAR PERIOD, I WAS UNAWARE THAT 64% OF ALL FEDERAL ARRESTS WERE OF NON-U.S. CITIZENS. 64% WERE NON-U.S. CITIZENS.>>AND WHAT’S RIDICULOUS IS YOU HEAR INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE UP FOR THAT, AND THEY SAY WELL, WE HAVE CRIMINALS IN THE UNITED STATES. I KNOW WE HAVE CRIMINALS HERE. BUT IT DOESN’T MEAN WE NEED TO START IMPORTING ANYMORE. WE’RE NOT AGAINST IMMIGRATION. EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. WE’RE VERY PRO-IMMIGRATION. BUT WE’RE PRO-LEGAL IMMIGRATION. THERE’S A RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS, AND THERE’S A WRONG WAY TO DO THINGS. DAVID: YOU DON’T WANT CRIMINALS COMING IN, AND YOU WANT PEOPLE COMING IN WHO ARE GOING TO BE WORKING HARD AND WHO WE NEED. THAT’S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE’VE GOT TO GET TO A MERIT-BASED SYSTEM, A SYSTEM WHERE WE’RE ABLE TO DECIDE WHO COMES IN AND WE DO HAVE JOBS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE WITH PARTICULAR SKILLS, TRY TO MATCH THOSE PEOPLE WITH THOSE JOB NEEDS THAT WE HAVE.>>THE SIMPLEST WAY I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO PEOPLE, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE AISLE, OR THE LEFT SIDE OF THE AISLE, WHEN YOU ARE AT HOME, YOU WANT INDIVIDUALS TO KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR, AND YOU WANT TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHO YOU ALLOW IN YOUR HOME, AND WHO YOU DON’T, YOU WANT INDIVIDUALS BREAKING THROUGH YOUR WINDOWS OR COMING IN UNANNOUNCED. THAT’S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. WE SHOULD HAVE IT AT OUR NATION’S BORDERS. DAVID: THAT’S A GOOD ANALYSIS. THE CBP WASN’T APPARENTLY COLLECTING DNA SAMPLES FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. THAT WAS A PROBLEM WHEN YOU’RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS WHO, WHO IS RELATED TO WHOM, WHETHER A PERSON HAS A BACKGROUND OR JUST GETTING THE DNA SAMPLES SO YOU CAN TRACK THAT PERSON IF THEY DO GET INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. IS THAT CHANGING NOW?>>THAT SHOULD BE CHANGING, AND HONESTLY, A LOT OF THESE CHANGES THAT ARE HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, I SOUND LIKE I’M CHEERLEADING, BUT THE HONEST TO GOODNESS TRUTH IS, WE HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT’S CARING ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM. WE HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT’S CARING ABOUT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND MOVING FORWARD, I HOPE IT CONTINUES, BUT WE’RE VERY GRATEFUL RIGHT NOW. WE’RE IN A POSITION RIGHT NOW WHERE WE CAN’T TAKE A STEP BACK, AND AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE, ILLEGAL IS NOT A RACE. STOP MAKING IT ABOUT RACE. DAVID: ABSOLUTELY.>>WE ALL NEED TO START BEHAVING LIKE AMERICANS. DAVID: ABSOLUTELY. WE’RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THAT LATER IN THE PROGRAM, BUT TO PUT THIS IN A RACIAL CONTEXT IS ABSURD.