Surprised and happy, Trump obey's.

Midas Whale67 said:
Exactly, and it likely will go to the SC.

What this demonstrates succinctly, at least here even though it's a minute sampling of Democrats, is this isn't about anything but an inability to accept loss with dignity. Ironically, the very thing they're railing 24/7 about with President Trump.

This isn't about keeping America safe from terrorism, illegal criminals residing in our cities, or anything that keeps us safe and protected. No, it's about their inability to accept a decision rendered by the duly authorized persons of America who make up the Electoral College.

They are so engulfed in their hatred of the President they are willing to allow what's happening in Germany and Sweden to come to our shores. This isn't about the poor Muslims, Syrians, or ISIS terrorists coming here. It's not about protecting their children, Grand babies, or our way of life. It's about their hatred and inability to shake a loss. Pitiful.
Click to expand...

But what's happening in German and Sweden, most likely occur in the US; because we're a bunch of crazy gun nuts who, according to liberals, just WANT SOMEONE to shoot.

:evilnod:
 
+ said:
if i am not mistaken the 9th has also ruled in favor of these type of bans in the past, and they will have to follow precedent. so yes this is very likely to win on appeal. It's completely constitutional for the executive branch to control the borders. once again we are dealing with run away judicial activists that are basing their rulings on how many facebook likes they'll get.
Click to expand...

Especially since there is precedent, with other Presidents issuing similar orders.
 
What we know. Congress, per the constitution, has absolute authority over immigration and naturalization, which they then wrote into a statute giving the President authority for pretty much whatever reason he deemed of national security to simply ban immigration or travel from any nation.

My guess is the SCOTUS will rule in his favor.
 
Jarod said:
Many parts, one that comes to mind right away is the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
Click to expand...

Care to point out, in detail, the "many parts"??

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
Damocles said:
What we know. Congress, per the constitution, has absolute authority over immigration and naturalization, which they then wrote into a statute giving the President authority for pretty much whatever reason he deemed of national security to simply ban immigration or travel from any nation.

My guess is the SCOTUS will rule in his favor.
Click to expand...

You may be right about what the supreme court will do, but you are sadly mistaken if you think that the president has absolute authority over Immigration and Naturalization. For example an absolute Muslim ban would clearly be unconstitutional as it Would be a violation of the first amendment and the 14th amendment. If you can't see that, you are pretty blind.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
did you think the constitution applies to citizens of foreign countries not in the US?......
Click to expand...

I think based on its plain meaning many parts do.

The Supreme Court has held that in some circumstances it does.

So, yes, I think parts of it does apply to citizens of foreign countries.
 
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.


Take the above section of the 14th Amendment. Do you see where the writer clearly identified which sections apply to Citizens and which apply to ANY PERSONS?

Class Dismissed!
 
Jarod said:
I think based on its plain meaning many parts do.

The Supreme Court has held that in some circumstances it does.

So, yes, I think parts of it does apply to citizens of foreign countries.
Click to expand...

cite me a case in the last 250 years that shows any court has ever agreed with you.....
 
Jarod said:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person hin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Take the above section of the 14th Amendment. Do you see where the writer clearly identified which sections apply to Citizens and which apply to ANY PERSONS?

Class Dismissed!
Click to expand...

uh yeah......any person within its jurisdiction.....say, do remember learning anything about jurisdiction in law school?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
uh yeah......any person within its jurisdiction.....say, do remember learning anything about jurisdiction in law school?.....
Click to expand...

Non-citizens cant be within the jurisdiction of the United States?

This is called the Socratic Method, when I ask an obvious question to prove my point.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
cite me a case in the last 250 years that shows any court has ever agreed with you.....
Click to expand...

Boumediene v. Bush, I don't have the full cite off the top of my head, but I am sure you can find it. Its the most recent such case I can remember.
 
Just remembered another one from Law School...... Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.

I remember it because the name always struck me as funny.
 
Found another one...


Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 598 n.5 (1953)
 
Here is a string site for you...


Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). See also Bridges v.
Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 (1945) (Murphy. J., concurring) (arguing that noncitizens
are protected by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Wong Wing v.
United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) (holding that noncitizens charged with crimes are
protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Fong Yue Ting v.
United States, 149 U.S. 698, 724 (1893) (observing that foreign nationals are entitled
to all "the safeguards of the Constitution, and to the protection of the laws, in regard
to their rights of person and of property, and to their civil and criminal responsibility");
Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651,660 (1892) (noting that foreign
nationals incarcerated here have a constitutional right to invoke habeas corpus).
 
Jarod said:
With the Court System stoping Trump's "executive order" in its tracks and illustrating a limit to his perceived absolute power I have been watching all weekend to see what happens next.

I was concerned that Trump would refuse to follow the rule of law and would instruct his administration to enforce the travel ban, despite the ruling, the Administration has obeyed the rule of law. I don't know if that was due to Trump's instruction or their own patriotism, but it is a good sign.

There are many indications that Trump does not understand or care about the separation of powers and that he was going to attempt to rule by decree as a king. It appears that, at least in this instance, he will bow to the power of the judiciary when they say he has overstepped his bounds. It is a good sign that my primary concerns of totalitarianism are, at least for the moment premature.
Click to expand...
My guess is you're wrong. I say Melania reminded him she was an immigrant and if he didn't knock off the anti-immigrant crap he'd be sleeping on the couch again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top