Judicial Tyranny II: Trump Must go to SC

[barrycarter]

They are quoting words not found to exist in the Executive Order.....the evidence under consideration, if its not in the EO...its hear say.

I think we disagree on what "hearsay" means.

void of screening ALL MUSLIMS that wish to enter this nation

Keep in mind that the ban/pause applied to people who had already been screened and already had valid visas.

all islamic terrorists are in fact MUSLIMS

That's a tautology.

until such time as a better system of screening could take place.

OK, but why target only Muslim terrorism? What about other forms of terrorism? Why not a global ban/pause on all immigration?

 

[Timshel]

They are quoting words not found to exist in the Executive Order.....the evidence under consideration, if its not in the EO...its hear say. Even when the President referenced muslims the phrase was always in the context of being synonymous with preventing TERRORISM as all ilsamic terrorists are 100% muslim....its a most difficult thing to declare that you are going to prevent ilslamic terrorist from enterning the nation void of screening ALL MUSLIMS that wish to enter this nation, as the facts in evidence demonstrate.....all islamic terrorists are in fact MUSLIMS, none are Christian terrorists.

Thus its simply hear say to attempt to declare that the president was attempting to ban all muslims....the EO was never a ban, it was a pause on immigration by Muslims who are in fact the sole provider of islamic terrorism, first on the 7 nations targeted by the last administration......until such time as a better system of screening could take place.

It's not hearsay in any case. We have evidence that he said these things.

Like tsuke in his use of gerrymander, you are using a word you can't afford.

islamic terrorists are in fact MUSLIMS

Another brilliant logician.

 

[barrycarter]

Hearsay is an out of court statement uttered in court offered to prove the matters asserted therein.

That's one definition (from Wikipedia), although wiktionary gives "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor", which is the more common everyday definition, though, as you note, not necessarily the definition as used in a court of law.

Quoting Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801) under "Prior statement by witness":

The hearsay problem arises when the witness on the stand denies having made the statement or admits having made it but denies its truth.

As far as I know, the DoJ lawyers (who represent the President) never denied that President Trump made the statements introduced in court.

 

[Ralph]

I think we disagree on what "hearsay" means.



Keep in mind that the ban/pause applied to people who had already been screened and already had valid visas.



That's a tautology.



OK, but why target only Muslim terrorism? What about other forms of terrorism? Why not a global ban/pause on all immigration?

Again....if the words do not come from the mouth of someone while testifying, or there is a record, such as writing a confession (The EO never mentioned such)....its hear say. There is no begging to differ...the rule of law is the rule of law.

Why ban people that are not ISLAMIC terrorists? Islam declared war on the United States of America...not once but twice in writing. Why would you have a pause of immigration on those who have not declared war on the US or have killed some 3200 + US citizens on US soil? There is the rule of law to consider....something the left should learn to adhere. A judges duty is to review law....not dictate it via judicial oligarchy fiat, that is radicalism.

 

[barrycarter]

Again....if the words do not come from the mouth of someone while testifying, or there is a record, such as writing a confession (The EO never mentioned such)....its hear say. There is no begging to differ...the rule of law is the rule of law.

See my other post re Federal Rules of Evidence.

Why ban people that are not ISLAMIC terrorists?

Are you saying that we should actively admit terrorists, provided they're not Islamic?

Islam declared war on the United States of America...not once but twice in writing.

Can you source this? Only nations can declare war, not religions.

Why would you have a pause of immigration on those who have not declared war on the US or have killed some 3200 + US citizens on US soil?

This is profiling: you find a commonality (Islam) between a group of people you dislike (terrorists), and then dislike everyone in the first group. It has no logical or statistical validity.

There are many other commonalities shared by terrorists (their gender, possibly their height and weight, color of their skin, etc, plus arbitrary collections of people), and the order didn't pause immigration from other Islam countries, so I don't think your statement is logical.

 

[Jarod]

I am starting to feel bad for Trump...


Has anything gone right with his presidency? I don't think he likes being president!

I think its harder than he expected.

 

[Ralph]

See my other post re Federal Rules of Evidence.



Are you saying that we should actively admit terrorists, provided they're not Islamic?



Can you source this? Only nations can declare war, not religions.



This is profiling: you find a commonality (Islam) between a group of people you dislike (terrorists), and then dislike everyone in the first group. It has no logical or statistical validity.

There are many other commonalities shared by terrorists (their gender, possibly their height and weight, color of their skin, etc, plus arbitrary collections of people), and the order didn't pause immigration from other Islam countries, so I don't think your statement is logical.

And can you prove that Religions can't declare war...even after all the historical evidence of Religions doing just that? I venture to say that you would be the first to bring up the Crusades and Inquisitions if it was Christians you were attacking due to war...no, comrade? And the fact that Islam did declare war....makes it moot because you leftists think you are superior to that faith and don't accept the declaration with any seriousness? Kind'a pompous no? Do you comprehend just what a Fatwa is...and the fact that ISLAM issued a 30 page fatwa, declaration of war against the United States of America?

So there is no war on terror and not all Islamic terrorists are muslim...the 3200 deaths are just a quinky dink, and repeating the same debunked argument over and over makes it true..eventually? Really? And you feign to be ignorant concerning the declared war? On Aug. 26th 1996, the leader of the Muslim Terrorists officially declared war..i.e., IN WRITING a declaration of JIHAD by all believing Muslims of the faith.

This declaration of Jihad was the first of two..explicit declarations of war. As far as feigning ignorance....I don't think its feigned. And you are ignoring the fact that these 7 nations was first targeted by Barry Soetoro and the previous congress, thats why this administration deemed it a good starting point to establish a better screening system.

 

[Timshel]

Hearsay is an out of court statement uttered in court offered to prove the matters asserted therein.

They were not trying prove that Trump's assertions were true. They are considering his intentions.

We are not relying on someone's recollection of a conversation to establish he said these things or had such intentions. It's not hearsay.

 

[Ralph]

I am starting to feel bad for Trump...


Has anything gone right with his presidency? I don't think he likes being president!

I think its harder than he expected.

Well....he has that senate and congress thingy going his way, and the SCOTUS thingy, The Obama Care thingy, the Pipeline thingy, the EPA getting its teeth pulled. The Education system going back to the state boards.....and its only a few weeks removed? The better question is...will the left ever show any success in attempting to discredit this administration that kicked their collective asses..... by moving even further to the left by authorizing violent riots, risking national security, beating down retards on the net, stalking and making death threats to the family members of the EC voters?

Yep...things are going peachy keen for the demokruats...no? Those 25 democrat seats in areas of the nation that elected Trump will be coming up soon. Can anyone say SUPER MAJORITY for the GOP while the left moves further and further left...the reason they got their ass kicked last time....and now they are doubling down on that same game plan? Just how stupid do you think the working men and women of this nation are...?

 

[barrycarter]

And can you prove that Religions can't declare war...even after all the historical evidence of Religions doing just that?

I think we're having a language difficulty here. What exactly do you mean by a religion declaring war? To be fair, I did think of one valid example: if the Pope declared war on the USA and told all Roman Catholics to attack, this would be an instance of a religion declaring a war, since the Pope is the leader of a sovereignty (the Holy See of Vatican City) that is synonymous with a religion.

I venture to say that you would

Don't venture. Venturing bad.

Do you comprehend just what a Fatwa is...

I've known informally what a fatwa was for some time ("a pronouncement of Muslim law"), but never really looked it up.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa, a fatwa is a "*nonbinding* but authoritative legal opinion" (emphasis added). More importantly, it appears that different nations/sects of Islam accept different fatwas. In other words, there is no "Pope" (or Popes) whose pronouncements apply to all Muslims.

This isn't really surprising if you look at sharia law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#/media/File:Madhhab_Map3.png

There are at least 10 different forms of sharia law that are not consistent with each other. It's not surprising there is no single person or persons whose fatwas apply to all Muslims.

and the fact that ISLAM issued a 30 page fatwa, declaration of war against the United States of America?

Can you source this? I'd like to see who issued the fatwa, which Muslims are bound by the fatwa (although, technically, it's nonbinding by definition), and whether the fatwa has been revoked or modified.

not all Islamic terrorists are muslim

I said the exact opposite. A "tautology" is something that is true by definition. I was pointing out your statement, while accurate, doesn't actually add anything to the discussion.

repeating the same debunked argument over and over makes it true..eventually? Really?

Which debunked argument am I making over and over?

And you feign to be ignorant concerning the declared war? On Aug. 26th 1996, the leader of the Muslim Terrorists officially declared war..i.e., IN WRITING a declaration of JIHAD by all believing Muslims of the faith

This declaration of Jihad was the first of two..explicit declarations of war. As far as feigning ignorance....I don't think its feigned.

I wasn't aware Muslim Terrorists officially even have a leader-- they certainly don't have a country. Groups like Al-Queda have leaders like Osama Bin Laden, but I don't think all Muslim Terrorists have a single leader (they don't even all agree on the same principles of Islam).

So the question becomes: who issued this fatwa and who and how many are bound by it. If you accept the wikipedia definition, a fatwa can only be given by someone who has sufficient status in the Muslim religion. Did Mr Terrorist Leader even have the status to pronounce a fatwa? Details, please?

And you are ignoring the fact that these 7 nations was first targeted by Barry Soetoro and the previous congress, thats why this administration deemed it a good starting point to establish a better screening system.

Yes, but that doesn't affect the legality of Trump's ban. Unless we officially declare war on these nations, the President can't unilaterally ban people (with legitimate visas, btw) from traveling here.

 

[tsuke]

I think we're having a language difficulty here. What exactly do you mean by a religion declaring war? To be fair, I did think of one valid example: if the Pope declared war on the USA and told all Roman Catholics to attack, this would be an instance of a religion declaring a war, since the Pope is the leader of a sovereignty (the Holy See of Vatican City) that is synonymous with a religion.



Don't venture. Venturing bad.



I've known informally what a fatwa was for some time ("a pronouncement of Muslim law"), but never really looked it up.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa, a fatwa is a "*nonbinding* but authoritative legal opinion" (emphasis added). More importantly, it appears that different nations/sects of Islam accept different fatwas. In other words, there is no "Pope" (or Popes) whose pronouncements apply to all Muslims.

This isn't really surprising if you look at sharia law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#/media/File:Madhhab_Map3.png

There are at least 10 different forms of sharia law that are not consistent with each other. It's not surprising there is no single person or persons whose fatwas apply to all Muslims.



Can you source this? I'd like to see who issued the fatwa, which Muslims are bound by the fatwa (although, technically, it's nonbinding by definition), and whether the fatwa has been revoked or modified.



I said the exact opposite. A "tautology" is something that is true by definition. I was pointing out your statement, while accurate, doesn't actually add anything to the discussion.



Which debunked argument am I making over and over?



I wasn't aware Muslim Terrorists officially even have a leader-- they certainly don't have a country. Groups like Al-Queda have leaders like Osama Bin Laden, but I don't think all Muslim Terrorists have a single leader (they don't even all agree on the same principles of Islam).

So the question becomes: who issued this fatwa and who and how many are bound by it. If you accept the wikipedia definition, a fatwa can only be given by someone who has sufficient status in the Muslim religion. Did Mr Terrorist Leader even have the status to pronounce a fatwa? Details, please?



Yes, but that doesn't affect the legality of Trump's ban. Unless we officially declare war on these nations, the President can't unilaterally ban people (with legitimate visas, btw) from traveling here.

actually even if you declare war on iran president trump still could not ban travel from there. The reason for the discrimination exists outside the EO and any current events but with statements he made on the campaign trail. The same argument of disfavoring muslims could still be used to declare it unconstitutional or get a tro.

 

[barrycarter]

actually even if you declare war on iran president trump still could not ban travel from there. The reason for the discrimination exists outside the EO and any current events but with statements he made on the campaign trail. The same argument of disfavoring muslims could still be used to declare it unconstitutional or get a tro.

Not true. If Congress actually declares war on Iran, we no longer recognize Iran's citizens and all visas previously granted are automatically revoked. I suppose you could argue the war itself was a war on Islam and thus unconstitutional, but that seems far fetched, and the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to uphold that argument since it interferes with the separation of powers.

 

[tsuke]

Not true. If Congress actually declares war on Iran, we no longer recognize Iran's citizens and all visas previously granted are automatically revoked. I suppose you could argue the war itself was a war on Islam and thus unconstitutional, but that seems far fetched, and the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to uphold that argument since it interferes with the separation of powers.

the reason for the discrimination is statmeents made on campaign trail which exists independent of any war.

 

[tsuke]

I just realized something as well. Immigration law by its very nature is exclusionary. Your setting standards for people to come in after all. If the bar for standing is that you will potentially have some students and faculty affected by the ban as they cannot leave or cannot have family come in. By that standard all states have standing in all immigration cases as 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.

 

[Ralph]

I think we're having a language difficulty here. What exactly do you mean by a religion declaring war? To be fair, I did think of one valid example: if the Pope declared war on the USA and told all Roman Catholics to attack, this would be an instance of a religion declaring a war, since the Pope is the leader of a sovereignty (the Holy See of Vatican City) that is synonymous with a religion.



Don't venture. Venturing bad.



I've known informally what a fatwa was for some time ("a pronouncement of Muslim law"), but never really looked it up.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa, a fatwa is a "*nonbinding* but authoritative legal opinion" (emphasis added). More importantly, it appears that different nations/sects of Islam accept different fatwas. In other words, there is no "Pope" (or Popes) whose pronouncements apply to all Muslims.

This isn't really surprising if you look at sharia law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#/media/File:Madhhab_Map3.png

There are at least 10 different forms of sharia law that are not consistent with each other. It's not surprising there is no single person or persons whose fatwas apply to all Muslims.



Can you source this? I'd like to see who issued the fatwa, which Muslims are bound by the fatwa (although, technically, it's nonbinding by definition), and whether the fatwa has been revoked or modified.



I said the exact opposite. A "tautology" is something that is true by definition. I was pointing out your statement, while accurate, doesn't actually add anything to the discussion.



Which debunked argument am I making over and over?



I wasn't aware Muslim Terrorists officially even have a leader-- they certainly don't have a country. Groups like Al-Queda have leaders like Osama Bin Laden, but I don't think all Muslim Terrorists have a single leader (they don't even all agree on the same principles of Islam).

So the question becomes: who issued this fatwa and who and how many are bound by it. If you accept the wikipedia definition, a fatwa can only be given by someone who has sufficient status in the Muslim religion. Did Mr Terrorist Leader even have the status to pronounce a fatwa? Details, please?



Yes, but that doesn't affect the legality of Trump's ban. Unless we officially declare war on these nations, the President can't unilaterally ban people (with legitimate visas, btw) from traveling here.

Your retort....worthless ad hominem BS? Really? And clearly you are totally ignorant of the US RULE OF LAW and the executive authority to manage the immigration process....and the blatant lie that WAR has to be declared...proves 2 points, one you don't think the US is involved in a Global War on Terror even though the US has forces and directs acts of war in at least 6 areas of the globe as we speak, the US has spent both blood and treasure on this war you say does not exist.....the final point, you need to tell the religion of ISLAM that they are not in a war with the United States of America...they think they are as they have engaged in over 30 thousand acts of war upon the west since 9/11. You say, right in the face of objective evidence to the contrary....religions can't declare war, but a 30 page declaration of war by ISLAM against the United States demonstrates just how bat shit stupid some people are.

And the law that you are so ignorant about? Its so clear that even a 5 year old Muslim can comprehend it....but progressives feign ambiguity? Section 212 f of the Immigration and Nationality Act, states, "Whenever the president finds that entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such periods as he deems necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose restrictions deemed necessary."

8 U.S.C. 1101, title 301, sec. 212 f

The left wing judges on the 9th...very well knows the EO is constitutional, that's the reason they are attempting to apply Religion as a test in placing a hold on the EOs action, when the EO never mentions religion as the reason for national security concerns. Thus, the false application of things external to the 4 corners of the EO...where the leftist can apply anything they think about...when they leave the actual text of the EO behind and venture into EVERYTHING outside its actual boundaries.....ruling on hear say in magically determining the 'real reason' for the EO.....discrimination against Muslims. "....any CLASS OF ALIENS....means ANY, MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANS, anyway the president wishes to break it down.

As you can see....by the rule of law, no alien has access to constitutional protections when they are outside the official borders of the US and are not US citizens....and in some cases even when they are US citizens it appears that the president is authorized to make up an assassination hit list of US citizens outside its borders void of due process when they are suspected of terrorism....just ask Barry Soetoro/Obama who assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki and his son...via drone attack in Yeman due to the presidential hit list. An act of WAR against Yeman...but we are not engaged in war with ISLAM..right comrade?

Funny as hell.....the left is so silent that you can hear a mouse fart when Obama assassinates US citizens void of due process in Yeman, but raise hell when the same nation is targeted for an immigration "pause" to beef up the screening process....to protect the home soil beneath YOUR ASS.

 

[barrycarter]

Your retort....worthless ad hominem BS? Really?

I don't think you're actually reading my replies, which makes this more difficult and less useful.

And clearly you are totally ignorant of the US RULE OF LAW

And that's NOT an argument ad hominem?

and the executive authority to manage the immigration process....

The Constitution grants foreign policy power to both Congress and the President, not just the President.

and the blatant lie that WAR has to be declared

If we assume the law in question is unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit is correct. I'm saying that declaring war would give us an absolute right to a travel ban, where the current ban could be unconstitutional.

one you don't think the US is involved in a Global War on Terror

You do understand that "war on terror", like "war on drugs", is an expression, and doesn't meet the Constitutional definition of war, right? I'm saying there's no formal declared war. I agree there's armed conflict.

you need to tell the religion of ISLAM

OK, but how do I do that? How do I tell a whole religion something?

a 30 page declaration of war by ISLAM against the United States

As I said in my previous reply, who made this declaration, who is bound by it, and has it been revoked? Remember, "Islam" refers to a collection or similar religions (like Christianity) not to a single religion.

And the law that you are so ignorant about?

As I replied earlier, the question is whether the law is Constitutional. The Constitution is the law of the land, and overrules any statute. In my replies to others, I've also explained the 9th Circuit's reasoning.

The left wing judges on the 9th...very well knows the EO is constitutional, that's the reason they are attempting to apply Religion as a test in placing a hold on the EOs action, when the EO never mentions religion as the reason for national security concerns. Thus, the false application of things external to the 4 corners of the EO...where the leftist can apply anything they think about...when they leave the actual text of the EO behind and venture into EVERYTHING outside its actual boundaries.....ruling on hear say in magically determining the 'real reason' for the EO.....discrimination against Muslims. "....any CLASS OF ALIENS....means ANY, MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANS, anyway the president wishes to break it down.

All laws are subject to judicial and Constitutional review. And I've already quoted the federal rules of evidence indicating where what you call "hearsay" is allowable. In this case, Trump's intent was a religious test, and what he outside the court is admissible in court, and wasn't even challenged by Trump's own lawyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins is a good precedent here. Quoting wikipedia "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886),[1] was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

As you can see....by the rule of law, no alien has access to constitutional protections

Correct. However, Muslims already in this country, who do have Constitutional protection, would be harmed if the US banned Muslims from entering, because it would mean the US is "establishing" a religion by creating a religious test for entrace.

it appears that the president is authorized to make up an assassination hit list of US citizens outside its borders void of due process when they are suspected of terrorism.... just ask Barry Soetoro/Obama who assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki and his son...via drone attack in Yeman due to the presidential hit list.

There's quite a bit of debate whether this act was actually legal, and I certainly opposed it.

An act of WAR against Yeman...but we are not engaged in war with ISLAM..right comrade?

This may be an act of war, but, unless actually Yemen actually declares war, there is no war. An "act of war" means an act that's "reasonably" sufficient for a country to declare war. It doesn't mean they HAVE to declare war.

Funny as hell.....the left is so silent that you can hear a mouse fart when Obama assassinates US citizens void of due process in Yeman, but raise hell when the same nation is targeted for an immigration "pause" to beef up the screening process....to protect the home soil beneath YOUR ASS.

How does this relate to me or the validity of what we're discussing now. You appear to be claiming that a group of people are hypocrites, which may be true, but that group doesn't include me and ultimately doesn't affect the validity of Trump's ban/pause.

 

[Ralph]

More BS...clearly, these nations harbor threats to the US as demonstrated via the last administrations engagement of unilateral acts of war in Somalia, Yeman, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc., all void of any joint congressional resolution under the war powers act of 1973. Its more than stupid to suggest that an act of WAR must be declared in order for the president to execute his duties under the US Constitution. FYI: Again it must be pointed out that foreign aliens do not have constitutional protection under the 14th or any Article of the US CONSTITUTION until they are officially standing on US SOIL.....no one is standing on US soil prior to immigration and customs screening at any PORT OF ENTRY into the US to include an international airport.

You are yet to objectively prove just how irreparable harm can come to anyone by the enforcement of standing US IMMIGRATION LAW. The US President is simply applying the Law as ratified, any foreign alien...ANY regardless of stated religion can be stopped from entering US SOIL by authority of the executive branch....Since these aliens do not have constitutional protection until they are processed within the borders of the United States of America....they have no right to be defended by the "establishment clause" or any other clause of the US CONSTITUTION.

So...I call BULL SHIT on your repeated ad hominem circular argument, as it falls on its face when you attempt to apply the Constitution to the world. This is the difference between you one world order socialists.....the US does have borders and they need to be protected and secured in times of WAR. You can claim to be what you wish to claim....but you are what your argument proves you to be. A leftist socialist.

 

[barrycarter]

More BS...clearly

BTW, "clearly" is another weasel word. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

"Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)

these nations harbor threats to the US as demonstrated via the last administrations engagement of unilateral acts of war in Somalia, Yeman, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.,

I'd like to see a list of these "unilateral acts", although I don't dispute there is such a list. All this shows is that the previous administration believed there was a threat. No one is infallible, so the previous administration could've been wrong.

What independent evidence do you have that these nations "harbor threats to the US" any more than other nations harbor threats, and how does that affect admitting refugees and others who are not representative of their nation. Connect the dots: admitting refugees/others from these countries threatens the United States (more than from other countries) because ....

all void of any joint congressional resolution under the war powers act of 1973.

According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution), "The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress."

In other words, the War Powers Act takes away Presidential power.

If you're saying that President Obama violated this act, you may be correct, but that's not at issue here. In particular, if no one challenged Obama's actions, there's no way to know if what he did was legal.

Its more than stupid to suggest that an act of WAR must be declared in order for the president to execute his duties under the US Constitution.

Correct. Which includes protecting the First Amendment by not establishing or favoring one religion over another.

FYI: Again it must be pointed out that foreign aliens do not have constitutional protection under the 14th or any Article of the US CONSTITUTION until they are officially standing on US SOIL.....no one is standing on US soil prior to immigration and customs screening at any PORT OF ENTRY into the US to include an international airport.

I think I've answered this twice now. It's not about aliens' rights, it's about American citizen rights.

You are yet to objectively prove just how irreparable harm can come to anyone by the enforcement of standing US IMMIGRATION LAW. The US President is simply applying the Law as ratified, any foreign alien...ANY regardless of stated religion can be stopped from entering US SOIL by authority of the executive branch....Since these aliens do not have constitutional protection until they are processed within the borders of the United States of America....they have no right to be defended by the "establishment clause" or any other clause of the US CONSTITUTION.

Correct. If you'd read my previous messages, you'll see that I'm not claiming alien rights, but existing citizen rights.

Irreparable (or irreversible) harm would occur to the plaintiffs if the Court ultimately finds the travel ban illegal. That's why the 9th Circuit gave a stay, it didn't overturn the order completely.

If you're claiming the aliens didn't have standing to sue, that's a different argument. Is that what you're claiming?

So...I call BULL SHIT on your repeated ad hominem circular argument

Do you know what the word "ad hominem" means?

the US does have borders and they need to be protected and secured in times of WAR.

This seems to contradict your argument, since we are not in a "time of war".

your argument proves you to be. A leftist socialist.

Which would mean you believe the United States is a leftist socialist country, which an odd point of view.

 

[Ralph]

BTW, "clearly" is another weasel word. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

"Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)



I'd like to see a list of these "unilateral acts", although I don't dispute there is such a list. All this shows is that the previous administration believed there was a threat. No one is infallible, so the previous administration could've been wrong.

What independent evidence do you have that these nations "harbor threats to the US" any more than other nations harbor threats, and how does that affect admitting refugees and others who are not representative of their nation. Connect the dots: admitting refugees/others from these countries threatens the United States (more than from other countries) because ....



According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution), "The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress."

In other words, the War Powers Act takes away Presidential power.

If you're saying that President Obama violated this act, you may be correct, but that's not at issue here. In particular, if no one challenged Obama's actions, there's no way to know if what he did was legal.



Correct. Which includes protecting the First Amendment by not establishing or favoring one religion over another.



I think I've answered this twice now. It's not about aliens' rights, it's about American citizen rights.



Correct. If you'd read my previous messages, you'll see that I'm not claiming alien rights, but existing citizen rights.

Irreparable (or irreversible) harm would occur to the plaintiffs if the Court ultimately finds the travel ban illegal. That's why the 9th Circuit gave a stay, it didn't overturn the order completely.

If you're claiming the aliens didn't have standing to sue, that's a different argument. Is that what you're claiming?



Do you know what the word "ad hominem" means?



This seems to contradict your argument, since we are not in a "time of war".



Which would mean you believe the United States is a leftist socialist country, which an odd point of view.

More Ad hominem circles. You keep stating debunked arguments. Like suggesting that the immigration pause effected US CITIZENS instead of denying alien immigrants into this nation...who have no constitutional rights. FYI: A temporary pause....can't possibly cause anyone irreparable HARM. You are yet to document just how this pause can cause such irreparable harm. No US Citizen can be harmed by denying immigrant aliens suspected of terrorist activity undeserved Constitutional rights. You just keep presenting the same, debunked...by a presentation of US law and code, ad hominem arguments. Snowflake? The more you repeat a lie the truer is must sound?

 

[tsuke]

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.

This is why the courts look at the statute first.