Surprised and happy, Trump obey's.

Buckly J. Ewer said:
Bannon and Flynn, his racist, anarchist cohorts are trying to convince the orange clown to disregard the courts...
So far, cooler heads have won the influence game with the orange idiot, but this clown is so volatile anything could still happen... especially if the next court ruling upholds the block...
Your avatar is perfect Trumptard. I wouldn't change a thing...
Click to expand...

And what is your PREDICTION, if the next Court doesn't uphold the ruling?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That was a joke Damo and nothing is ever simple when lawyers are involved.
Click to expand...

Nah, the judges let the lawyers make money from hourly billing but it is truly a simple problem. Congress has ceded a certain portion of Plenary power to the Executive for just such on occasion. Other Presidents have used it previously. It really isn't a tough one to predict.
 
Jarod said:
I don't care if Congress gave the president every drop of power they ever had, they STILL can't violate the Constitution, Fucking idiots!
Click to expand...

You keep saying that and I've asked you to explain and even provided a copy of the 1st Amendment.
Can you expand on your comment or do you just intend to keep repeating it, as a mantra?
 
1b0237ebabcd7ccf832e4f3a85c12161.jpg


Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Jarod said:
Found another one...


Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 598 n.5 (1953)
Click to expand...

The Court stated that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and continues to be physically present in the country, he is protected under the Fifth Amendment.
Click to expand...

present in the country.......all three cases dealt with people already within the jurisdiction of the country.....not those seeking entry.....keep trying.....
 
Jarod said:
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).
Click to expand...

Almeida - 25 air miles north of the Mexican border
Bridges - deportation hearing, obviously here....
Wong (citing the next case Ting)But this Court held, in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, that the right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent nation
Ekiu - foreign nationals incarcerated here

every single one of your cases show I am right and you are wrong......why do you suck so bad?......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This brings up a serious question for me. If this EO is meant to protect our nation from Islamic radicals why isn't Saudi Arabia on this list?
Click to expand...
maybe because unlike the seven on the list they have 1) a government that is 2) not engaged in hostile action in opposition to the US or its allies.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top