Surprised and happy, Trump obey's.

Yaya said:
The States briefs are due midnight tonight pacific and Trump's is due tomorrow by 6 pm eastern.

:corn:

My prediction:

Trump wins. The Constitution gives "plenary" power to Congress over immigration. Congress then gave some power to the executive branch, vis a vis, the code Grind posted. This is not to say that the executive branch now has plenary power, rather, that Congress has very broad power over immigration and in giving some power to the Executive branch regarding immigration, I do not see how the judicial branch can rule against Congress and the Executive branch when that power is plenary, and even under the most strictest scrutiny, Trump wins due to national security reasons.
Click to expand...

The wussy Bukkkle is too afraid to take my bet on this.

I'm bumping this even though the wuss thinks I'm wrong. December Surprise will flail again.
 
tsuke said:
correct me if im wrong the only issue i see here is whether or not it is a muslim ban correct? It is the only one I can see that may violate due process.

Given that its only limited to 7 countries I cant see how it stands.
Click to expand...

This is the only issue I have identified, but I have not really studied it. It does not matter if it bans all Muslims or not, what matters is if it bans Muslims disproportantly than others. Without a rational non-religous basis.
 
Damocles said:
It does, however, underscore what I said. Plenary = absolute...

You can't violate plenary powers. Had he said just Muslims from these countries couldn't come you may have a point. But he didn't.

As I've said. It is a relatively simplistic equation, even for lawyers. One of the most straight forward to bring to the SCOTUS that I've ever seen and I'm predicting the SCOTUS upholds the travel ban.
Click to expand...

ITs still an issue due to the Christian exemption. When you say something is absolute, especially in Constitutional Law, you are generally WRONG.

Your personal insults not withstanding, you made yourself out to be a fool when you said there could be no issue.

In this case, plenary and absolute do not actually mean absolute in the sense you said it did. They have absolute and plenary authority, as in no one else has a say, but they don't have plenary or absolute authority when it comes to violations of the Constitution.

Constitutional Law Class Dismissed, Damo maybe you should stay after and study a bit!
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
Yes. By giving exception to the ban to Christians the EO puts into play the necessity for a religious test... Who is really a Muslim, who is really a Christian ... and it brings into question are any other religious groups given exception, or just Christians?
The wording that brings the need for a religious test alone puts the order into unconstitutional territory...
Click to expand...

Yup, you get an A.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again you are BLIND to the Constitutional Rights issues under the 1st and the 14th Amendment.

You are correct that Congress has ceded, Constitutionally so, the rights they had.... but CONGRESS never has the right to violate the Constitution.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
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?
Click to expand...

So let me prove my point this way....

Do you think Congress or the President ever have the legal or legitimate power to violate the Constitution? Because that is my point, they don't then NEVER Do.
 
Religious test or not, where are all the RW morons that tried to invoke "natural rights" a few weeks ago? You know, all people have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It looks like you pro-ban people advocate violating these refugees' natural rights.
 
Jarod said:
This is the only issue I have identified, but I have not really studied it. It does not matter if it bans all Muslims or not, what matters is if it bans Muslims disproportantly than others. Without a rational non-religous basis.
Click to expand...

Can we ban all jihadists?
 
Jarod said:
This might well be the final result.

It will finally be determined by the Supreme Court, but as you can all see... There are arguments. This does require a judicial opinion. It is not SIMPLE.
Click to expand...

I was wondering why one judge who said it was ok had a 21 page decision while the other just said struck down and had a one page decision. Is that normal? Arent you supposed to provide a decision of some sort?
 
tsuke said:
I was wondering why one judge who said it was ok had a 21 page decision while the other just said struck down and had a one page decision. Is that normal? Arent you supposed to provide a decision of some sort?
Click to expand...

From what I can gather the activist judge based his ruling on the efficacy of the EO. Which might be ok if he sat in on national security briefings. He is supposed to rule on whether or not it violates the constitution or rights of *US citizens*.

It should be overturned and likely will be.
 
Darth Omar said:
From what I can gather the activist judge based his ruling on the efficacy of the EO. Which might be ok if he sat in on national security briefings. He is supposed to rule on whether or not it violates the constitution or rights of *US citizens*.

It should be overturned and likely will be.
Click to expand...

thats what i got too which is not a legal arguement.
 
“Federal courts,” the brief said, “have no more sacred role than protecting marginalized groups against irrational, discriminatory conduct.”

this is from judge robart. Nothing about constitutionality. That is not the primary goal of the court.

Its to protect marginalized groups. Like you know the christians in syria lol.
 
Darth Omar said:
From what I can gather the activist judge based his ruling on the efficacy of the EO. Which might be ok if he sat in on national security briefings. He is supposed to rule on whether or not it violates the constitution or rights of *US citizens*.

It should be overturned and likely will be.
Click to expand...

Just more obstruction by the Liberals. The intent is to delay and further the divide in America. Liberals don't care if Islamic Terrorists come to our country. They are so embedded in their sour grapes over their monumental loss, they are willing to put their very own children and grandchildren in mortal danger in order to delegitimize President Trump.

Think about that. This isn't about the safety of America, this is a full-blown public and humiliating breakdown in front of the entire world. In order to distance themselves from this catastrophic loss, they are willing to barter their own families to "get" Trump.

When you know this travel ban was devised by Obama, but was too chickenshit to enforce, then you understand clearly that it's Liberal policies that have put the exclamation mark on bringing this country to its knees. Constantly whipping up hatred and fear in an attempt to take the focus off their loss and endanger my, yours, and even their very own lives.

Such pitiful and abhorrent behavior.
 
tsuke said:
“Federal courts,” the brief said, “have no more sacred role than protecting marginalized groups against irrational, discriminatory conduct.”

this is from judge robart. Nothing about constitutionality. That is not the primary goal of the court.

Its to protect marginalized groups. Like you know the christians in syria lol.
Click to expand...

Bush must have been sleepwalking when he appointed that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top