Again. Immigrant Muslims have no constitutional rights...until they are on US SOIL. No court can apply something that does not exist. The only reason they issued a stay is because they refused to allow the EO to be amended to allow Green Card holders into the US. Thus...the cure is simple. Simply draft another EO. The left knows that its constitutionally was never in question, thus the refusal to allow an amendment to the first EO....they used the only course possible to issue a stay, suggesting void of evidence that this was a ban on all Muslims even citizens of the US. Its not rocket science....anyone can see why they insisted that the original language in the EO stay intact..until they ruled. The ruling was predetermined before the dog and phony show.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Judicial Tyranny II: Trump Must go to SC
- Thread starter tsuke
- Start date
Again. Immigrant Muslims have no constitutional rights...until they are on US SOIL. No court can apply something that does not exist. The only reason they issued a stay is because they refused to allow the EO to be amended to allow Green Card holders into the US. Thus...the cure is simple. Simply draft another EO. The left knows that its constitutionally was never in question, thus the refusal to allow an amendment to the first EO....they used the only course possible to issue a stay, suggesting void of evidence that this was a ban on all Muslims even citizens of the US. Its not rocket science....anyone can see why they insisted that the original language in the EO stay intact..until they ruled. The ruling was predetermined before the dog and phony show.
barrycarter
Verified User
More Ad hominem circles.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Like suggesting that the immigration pause effected US CITIZENS
Well, a ban on Muslim immigrants WOULD affect US citizens, but you're correct in saying that a temporary pause wouldn't.
instead of denying alien immigrants into this nation...who have no constitutional rights.
OK, I finally think I see the other mistake you're making. Quoting section 1 of the 14th Amendment with emphasis added:
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.
You could argue the federal government isn't a state, but aside from that argument, any person "within its jurisdiction" definitely applies to aliens who have been granted a visa. If we have the right to deport them, they are within our jurisdiction.
FYI: A temporary pause....can't possibly cause anyone irreparable HARM.
If the plaintiffs were forced to return to their country, they would likely be killed. That's pretty irreparable!
Again. Immigrant Muslims have no constitutional rights...until they are on US SOIL. No court can apply something that does not exist. The only reason they issued a stay is because they refused to allow the EO to be amended to allow Green Card holders into the US. Thus...the cure is simple. Simply draft another EO. The left knows that its constitutionally was never in question, thus the refusal to allow an amendment to the first EO....they used the only course possible to issue a stay, suggesting void of evidence that this was a ban on all Muslims even citizens of the US. Its not rocket science....anyone can see why they insisted that the original language in the EO stay intact..until they ruled. The ruling was predetermined before the dog and phony show.
Doesnt matter how many EO Trump drafts. If Scalia himself made the EO it would be unconstitutional as the legislative intent is derived from the statement not the four corners of the EO.
For example if Obama or Clinton promised strict gun controls at any point during their campaign or an assault weapons ban during the campaign any and all EO he issues during their tenure would have this as the legislative intent and could be challenged on those grounds for violating the second ammendment.
We have entered a phase where the wording on the EO or statute does not matter anymore.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Well, a ban on Muslim immigrants WOULD affect US citizens, but you're correct in saying that a temporary pause wouldn't.
OK, I finally think I see the other mistake you're making. Quoting section 1 of the 14th Amendment with emphasis added:
You could argue the federal government isn't a state, but aside from that argument, any person "within its jurisdiction" definitely applies to aliens who have been granted a visa. If we have the right to deport them, they are within our jurisdiction.
If the plaintiffs were forced to return to their country, they would likely be killed. That's pretty irreparable!
Who cares if Aliens are killed by their own nation? The US rule of law does not apply to foreign nationals period...until they are on US soil. No US citizen was turned away, no US citizen will ever be turned away. No EO was ever drafted that suggested that US citizens would be subject to deportation....or any Muslim here LEGALLY who have been screened...supposedly. The EO effected only foreign nationals void of any US constitutional standing...period, clearly, unambiguously.
And FYI: ad hominem means exactly what it means: you are attempting to make an argument void of any objective testable evidence...based upon emotion rather than facts or logic. Just like suggesting that the constitution applies to everyone...and attempting to falsely tug on the heart string....they will be killed if they are denied entry. Cry me a river....Islam controls 25% of the land mass in the world, why must the west be overrun will immigrants who constitute 100% of all Islamic acts of terror? Why can't the rest of the Muslim world take in and harbor those of their own faith? Strange that its the western world that must take in the threat of a Trojan Horse. As documented and demonstrated time and time again in Europe. Now that's ad hominem....you refuse to accept the reality that surrounds you and ignore facts, logic and reason by repeating the same emotional bull shit over and over...that's been demonstrated to be false.
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Scalia used to have a stamp that said "stupid but constitutional" I wish more judges were like that.
He is dead...
He is dead...
sad!
barrycarter
Verified User
Given the argument of the 9th even war would not give Trump the right to ban entry to Iran. The argument is his campaign statements give any action he takes the motive of discrimination against muslims. Whether there is a war or not would not change those statements and his intent therefore it would still be unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure the protocols of war would override this argument, though I'm not sure it's ever been tested. Nathan Michael Smith vs Obama (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...g-obama-over-legality-of-the-war-against-isis) tests the legality of the President's non-war military action, but that's not the same thing.
In particular, if we're at war with a country, we have no jurisdiction over its citizens, so the 14th Amendment wouldn't apply, and no citizen of that country would have standing to sue the United States.
barrycarter
Verified User
all you would need to do is find one person in your state who works in a university or anything related to govt and you have standing.
Actually, even the immigrants themselves would have standing under the 14th Amendment, provided they are subject to US jurisdiction.
barrycarter
Verified User
Who cares if Aliens are killed by their own nation?
This is a different argument. I certainly care. But "who cares" has nothing to do with the law. We are discussing the legality of the executive order, not whether a given person cares about what happens.
The US rule of law does not apply to foreign nationals period...until they are on US soil.
Yes it does. The 14th Amendment protects anyone within US jurisdiction, and that includes foreign nations once they land in our country.
You could argue that US airports (prior to immigration clearance) aren't US soil, but that doesn't matter: immigrants in US airports are subject to US jurisdiction and thus protected by the 14th Amendment.
or any Muslim here LEGALLY who have been screened...supposedly.
No, the EO was explicitly trying to deport Muslims who were screened (some even had green cards) and who had already arrived at US airports.
The EO effected only foreign nationals void of any US constitutional standing...period, clearly, unambiguously.
The screening process takes several months, so it's not really an issue yet. The question is whether the President can stop screened foreigners from entering our nation based on religion.
You could even argue that, as a soverign nation, the United States' jurisdiction extends to the entire universe/multiverse, since we only accept the jurisdiction of other nations if we choose to. I don't know if anyone's ever used that argument, though I doubt it would be successful in court.
And FYI: ad hominem means exactly what it means: you are attempting to make an argument void of any objective testable evidence...based upon emotion rather than facts or logic.
You should really look up the definition in wikipedia or wiktionary.
Just like suggesting that the constitution applies to everyone...
The 14th Amendment is quite clear on this.
and attempting to falsely tug on the heart string....
I'm trying to present a rational argument, I'm not trying to tug on any heart strings.
they will be killed if they are denied entry.
Yes, that's why it's irreparable harm. Keep in mind that this ban/pause applied to Christians and others as well, and there were definitely Christians who were affected. Trump was attempting a Muslim ban, but by creating a national origin ban, he harmed Christians as well.
Cry me a river....Islam controls 25% of the land mass in the world, why must the west be overrun will immigrants who constitute 100% of all Islamic acts of terror?
Now, it's you who appears to be making an emotional, not logical argument.
What does any of this have to do with the legality of the EO?
And what about non-Islamic acts of terror?
Why can't the rest of the Muslim world take in and harbor those of their own faith?
You'd have to ask them, but at least some refugees/immigrants are not of the Muslim faith, and some are actually trying to escape it.
Strange that its the western world that must take in the threat of a Trojan Horse. As documented and demonstrated time and time again in Europe.
Can you source any of this without any statistical or logical fallacies? Should we start a new thread for this unrelated issue?
Now that's ad hominem....you refuse to accept the reality that surrounds you and ignore facts, logic and reason by repeating the same emotional bull shit over and over...that's been demonstrated to be false.
That's not ad hominem, and that's not what I've done, and none of your arguments (except that the Roman Catholic religion can declare war) have been demonstrated or show to be valid in any way, shape, or form.