Surprised and happy, Trump obey's.

Granule said:
Nope. And you're a disingenuous asshole for even suggesting such a thing. Trump has no intention of being King, and nobody on this side would want him to be. Would you? How about Hussein Obama. Would you want him to be king? Some of the dumbest people in Hollywood wanted him to declare martial law, which is a solid step toward kingship.

But none of this solves the illegal immigration problem. Your petty ass courts got their little victory, so now what is your proposal to stop it?
Click to expand...
I resent that. You're way out of line. Jarod is NOT a disingenuous asshole. He's a licensed disingenuous asshole!!
 
+ 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...
I don't think so. Trump made this a religious test. That won't fly. He will either have to revise his EO or it will get tossed.
 
Jarod said:
This is correct. I don't know how the courts will rule. The point of this thread was that I am proud that the president is obeying the current ruling of the court. It's important that he acknowledges that he is limited and subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
How is this district court able to make the order nationwide?
 
Yaya said:
What part of the constitution supersedes this code?
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure, depends on the Supreme Courts view of it, but I see an argument that the Order is in violation of the 1st and the 14th Amendments , maybe a more creative lawyer has some other arguments for how it supersedes the Constitution.

So now we are admitting that the Constitution COULD supersede, progress on your part.
 
+ said:
TEllrAz.png
Click to expand...

1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the Hart-Celler Act (An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes)
H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89-236; 79 Stat. 911.
89th Congress; October 3, 1965.
You can find the full text of this law as a PDF here.
*
SUMMARY
The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the U.S. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, nor "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western hemisphere; former citizens; ministers; employees of the U.S. government abroad).

In other words it is illegal to discriminate against an immigrant to the U.S. based on their national origins. The Hart-Celler act has been the law of the land for over 50 years and for President Trump's E.O. on immigration to be legally enforceable he would require Congress to repeal the Hart-Celler Act or President Trump would be in violation of the law.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
anatta said:
no way SCOTUS is going to throw out existing legislation. I expect a ruling along narrow readings of the pertinent statutes - and I think they're gonna invalidate by that most narrow of reasons,instead of getting into full scale separation of powers arguments..I could be wrong -it depends on the Orals of course as well
Click to expand...
No I'm pretty sure that they will rule that President Trumps EO will be voided based on that he has not defined a clear and present danger to establish a national security measure and his EO is a clear violation of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote. You have to be the worst lawyer when it comes to constitutional law I have ever spoken with. Congress has that authority. They then gave this part of it over to the Executive in the statute previously listed above. It isn't that difficult to understand. He is fully within his given authority to write a travel ban from a list of nations, Congress wrote the statute... And they have the power to grant that authority... Simple path, easiest case ever to bring before the SCOTUS that ever existed.
 
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 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!
Click to expand...

What are the immigrants being denied? Liberty? It is not a right to come to America. I thought this might apply, but after thinking it through, I'm not so sure.
 
Damocles said:
Read what I wrote. You have to be the worst lawyer when it comes to constitutional law I have ever spoken with. Congress has that authority. They then gave this part of it over to the Executive in the statute previously listed above. It isn't that difficult to understand. He is fully within his given authority to write a travel ban from a list of nations, Congress wrote the statute... And they have the power to grant that authority... Simple path, easiest case ever to bring before the SCOTUS that ever existed.
Click to expand...
That's funny watching you play amateur lawyer. The Hart-Celler act makes such an EO on such a basis as discriminating on the basis of national origins clearly illegal. So Congress has told the President "You can't do that".
 
Jarod said:
I don't know for sure, depends on the Supreme Courts view of it, but I see an argument that the Order is in violation of the 1st and the 14th Amendments , maybe a more creative lawyer has some other arguments for how it supersedes the Constitution.

So now we are admitting that the Constitution COULD supersede, progress on your part.
Click to expand...

I never said it couldn't, jackass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top