Posted:
#26
As I stated, it wasn't a ban rather it changed the vetting process to make it more stringent. I posted a very good and non political link that discussed it.
Federal judge stays deportations after Trump's order barring refugees, migrants causes outrage
Posted:
#28
Trump’s order makes no mention of Turkey, which has faced several terrorist attacks in recent months.State Department updated a travel warning for Americans visiting Turkey, noting that “an increase in anti-American rhetoric has the potential to inspire independent actors to carry out acts of violence against US citizens.”
Trump has licensed his name to two luxury towers in Istanbul. A Turkish company also manufactures a line of Trump-branded home furnishings. Trump’s most recent financial disclosure, filed in May when he was a presidential candidate, showed that he had earned as much as $6 million in the previous year from the deals.
Posted:
#29
Trump is set to announce his appointee for the supreme court in the next few days.
The media will forget all about the people not being allowed in this country at that point, as the mass hysteria over a conservative SCJ overwhelms the news cycle.
By the following week, everyone will be going bat sh!t crazy over the next Executive Order.
And round and round it goes .....
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:
They are not Americans. they have no rights in our country. the Constitution does not protect them.
In the immortal words {from} Indiana Jones, "you lost today kid but it doesn't mean you have to like it."
Like the little engine that could, start small. Try debating at the grammar schools. When you get a handle on understanding facts, figures, and laws, slowly move your way up. I'm certain that with reading and effort, it won't be long before you are able to hold your own at the junior high level. 
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
Posted:
#32
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:
I am just a right wing non thinking conservative...okay, I fell your disdain.
I am just a right wing non thinking conservative...okay, I fell your disdain.
Immigrants from Saudi Arabia are known, investigated, as well as from other Gulf States, and these wealthy gulf states do not take refugees.
Its hard to take anything you say seriously when you don't stick to facts.
Immigrants from Saudi Arabia are no more known than any other country. If you question that, you should look at the nationalities of the 911 attackers.
No elected leader can circumvent the law or the constitution. Perhaps your school did not teach you that or you missed civics or education was not a priority in your family (or you just have bad genes, but I digress).
As for the Orlando attacker, two things could have prevented that since he was here completely legally.
1) Superman spinning the Earth backwards to go back in time; or
2) Guns laws dealing with those who are mentally ill or on the watch list.
I know you don't support the latter so it really wasn't preventable.
Posted:
#33
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
In the immortal words {from} Indiana Jones, "you lost today kid but it doesn't mean you have to like it."
Like the little engine that could, start small. Try debating at the grammar schools. When you get a handle on understanding facts, figures, and laws, slowly move your way up. I'm certain that with reading and effort, it won't be long before you are able to hold your own at the junior high level.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
I'm guessing the president is relying on 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f).
Posted:
#34
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
I'm guessing the president is relying on 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f).
I'm guessing the president is relying on 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f).
He is. Nothing about Trump's actions are illegal, ,so to speak. He is acting under color of authority as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1182, et seq., as the head of the Executive Branch, with such powers given by the Legislative Branch.
That, in no way, limits the constitutional protections an individual may have as reviewed the Judicial Branch.
One rudimentary comparison would be seeking the death penalty. The Prosecutor (a member of the Executive Branch) can seek and obtain it and it does not eliminate the constitutional protections therein for the individual.
Posted:
#35
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Its hard to take anything you say seriously when you don't stick to facts.
Immigrants from Saudi Arabia are no more known than any other country. If you question that, you should look at the nationalities of the 911 attackers.
No elected leader can circumvent the law or the constitution. Perhaps your school did not teach you that or you missed civics or education was not a priority in your family (or you just have bad genes, but I digress).
As for the Orlando attacker, two things could have prevented that since he was here completely legally.
1) Superman spinning the Earth backwards to go back in time; or
2) Guns laws dealing with those who are mentally ill or on the watch list.
I know you don't support the latter so it really wasn't preventable.
seems I saw a charter or declaration or something on hemp paper somewhere
"All men are created equal,"....
Posted:
#36
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:
(((crickets)))
(((crickets)))
It makes one cringe to try debate someone who has some mythical (racially inspired perhaps) AXE to grind against the Amaerican majority (white people).
Then he doesn't choose to respond because he can't cherry pick something out of my argument to focus on it "red herring" style.
Mainstream media is feeding the epilipsy left into hysteria. We will prevail. We will wait for the ILLOGICAL left to subside with fake tears, Sharia loving feminists (there is a TRUE revelation of idiocy) and we will secure our borders.
Law and order, and logic will prevail. Leftists are looking more foolish everyday.
There is nothing to respond to. You have offered nothing to the conversation.
To sit at the big boy table, you need to be able to use verifiable facts and law to articulate a position.
You haven't used facts or law. You have actually misstated both in several places.
You haven't articulated a position. You have instead generalized, used stereotypes, and relied upon hysteria.
There is nothing I could glean from you that I couldn't get from reading a 5th grader's synopsis of what his uneducated, racist father told him at the dinner table the night before.
Posted:
#38
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and
Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress
shall make.
I do not see this court Legislating from the bench. As Chief justice John Roberts does seem to allowing Laws from the legislature to stand such as the Affordable Care Act.
I do not see this court Legislating from the bench. As Chief justice John Roberts does seem to allowing Laws from the legislature to stand such as the Affordable Care Act.
Posted:
#39
not to take it out of context.
article 3 sec 2 paragraph 1.2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
article 3 sec 2 paragraph 1.2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Posted:
#40
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
He is. Nothing about Trump's actions are illegal, ,so to speak. He is acting under color of authority as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1182, et seq., as the head of the Executive Branch, with such powers given by the Legislative Branch.
That, in no way, limits the constitutional protections an individual may have as reviewed the Judicial Branch.
One rudimentary comparison would be seeking the death penalty. The Prosecutor (a member of the Executive Branch) can seek and obtain it and it does not eliminate the constitutional protections therein for the individual.
Not trying to be argumentative, but the federal statute gives the president the power, by proclamation, to "suspend the right of all aliens, or any class of aliens, as immigrants or non-immigrants,or impose any restrictions he deems appropriate" if the president believes entry may be detrimental to the USA. It seems to me, that unless that statute, or some part of that statute, is found to be unconstitutional, the president's suspension will be upheld.
Posted:
#41
I don't think you are being argumentative. You are arguing the position the government will take.
The easiest parallel case is Korematsu v. United States (Japanese internment camps).
As the case shows, the Constitutional rights still existed even under the executive order, but the Court found the circumstances outweighed the individual rights asserted.
Since that time, many decisions have made Korematsu seem very narrow and the government later admitted error.
I expect that legal scholars on both sides will be sharpening their 'pens' on this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
Posted:
#42
Korematsu certainly comes to mind, but for those arguing against the president's position, it poses two problems that I can see. First, despite being one of the most criticized decisions in memory, it supported the government in a case where the highest level of scrutiny was utilized in a race discrimination case. That almost never happens. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Korematsu was decided in favor of the government even though the racial group claiming discrimination was a group of American citizens, who clearly enjoy more rights under the Constitution than the individuals burdened by the current president's executive order.
I agree the legal eagles will be sharpening their pencils on this one and it will be fascinating from a legal perspective to hear the reasoning when it is ultimately decided.
I agree the legal eagles will be sharpening their pencils on this one and it will be fascinating from a legal perspective to hear the reasoning when it is ultimately decided.
Posted:
#43
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
[Vol. 25:367
The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people." The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."13 For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality."14 The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."15
guess I had to chime in... many can argue the states case and because a try to be as Neutral ( (seems to always autocorrect to neutered sorry) had to capitalize to stop the effected program)
might as well give a siding voice for the civil liberties side....
Posted:
#44
of course these arguments have been waged against the ban of felons to vote as each of the founding fathers were convicted of treason without a favorable outcome. and the Japanese citizens vs USA as described in Ken's argument. POW in KIW (Katadin Iron Works ) also was heard without the benefit of this argument.
but as we certainly almost always forget what is what should be
are completely a separate in most instances
it is the manner dealing with in flaws of Human nature.
Posted:
#45
Question :
If, ex-President Obama can use his pen and by-pass Congress to allow millions of people of his choosing to stay in the country.(Dreamers /Daca ) for years ..
What's wrong with President Donald Trump using his pen to keep people,of his choosing ,,out of the country, for a few months...?
If, ex-President Obama can use his pen and by-pass Congress to allow millions of people of his choosing to stay in the country.(Dreamers /Daca ) for years ..
What's wrong with President Donald Trump using his pen to keep people,of his choosing ,,out of the country, for a few months...?
Posted:
#46
there's going to be a lot trump can do with immigration through executive orders just like there was a lot obama could do. trump probably needs to get someone who has a clue about how our immigration system works to help him. you can't just detain people with green cards without warning. and there are probably constitutional issues depending on what heis really trying to do. but, trump will have a lot of authority in this area.
Posted:
#47
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
Korematsu certainly comes to mind, but for those arguing against the president's position, it poses two problems that I can see. First, despite being one of the most criticized decisions in memory, it supported the government in a case where the highest level of scrutiny was utilized in a race discrimination case. That almost never happens. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Korematsu was decided in favor of the government even though the racial group claiming discrimination was a group of American citizens, who clearly enjoy more rights under the Constitution than the individuals burdened by the current president's executive order.
I agree the legal eagles will be sharpening their pencils on this one and it will be fascinating from a legal perspective to hear the reasoning when it is ultimately decided.
Korematsu certainly comes to mind, but for those arguing against the president's position, it poses two problems that I can see. First, despite being one of the most criticized decisions in memory, it supported the government in a case where the highest level of scrutiny was utilized in a race discrimination case. That almost never happens. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Korematsu was decided in favor of the government even though the racial group claiming discrimination was a group of American citizens, who clearly enjoy more rights under the Constitution than the individuals burdened by the current president's executive order.
I agree the legal eagles will be sharpening their pencils on this one and it will be fascinating from a legal perspective to hear the reasoning when it is ultimately decided.
Nice analysis! Your second argument is certainly going to be quite persuasive presuming one can get past the immediate response that it creates a tier, so to speak, of those claiming constitutional violations.
With that being said, the only Plaintiffs with an argument, IMHO, are those who were previously granted admission.
Posted:
#48
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Question :
If, ex-President Obama can use his pen and by-pass Congress to allow millions of people of his choosing to stay in the country.(Dreamers /Daca ) for years ..
What's wrong with President Donald Trump using his pen to keep people,of his choosing ,,out of the country, for a few months...?
Question :
If, ex-President Obama can use his pen and by-pass Congress to allow millions of people of his choosing to stay in the country.(Dreamers /Daca ) for years ..
What's wrong with President Donald Trump using his pen to keep people,of his choosing ,,out of the country, for a few months...?
The difference is Obama, rightly or wrongly, is making a political move that does not impact constitutional rights whereas Trump is making a political move that does.
Posted:
#49
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
The difference is Obama, rightly or wrongly, is making a political move that does not impact constitutional rights whereas Trump is making a political move that does.
I have leaned not to step into your arena of jurisprudence in a debate with you,,so I'm just asking.
What Constitutional rights does President Donald Trump's ban/pause impact?
Posted:
#50
Ha! Not at all. You generally hold your own just fine, old friend.
The litigants (those who were granted admission before the ban) will argue due process and detainment (because they are effectively detained by not being admitted).
As Ken points out, the Government will argue lack of standing and in the alternative, the prevention/safety issues outweigh the harm.
Hot Forum Topics
