Trump and Damocles argue the President can violate the Constitution.

The liberal 9th circuit has put itself in a lose/lose scenario. If they rule against Trump, they confirm that they have become politicized. Or they follow the law and uphold Trump's order.
 
anatta said:
I realize you are not a Constitutional lawyer..the 9th orals were throwing in all kinds of superfluous
points -looking for "intent" -questioning policy; when the plain wording is what needs to be decided-
based on Constitutional authority and any relevant statutes....period
Click to expand...

Leftwinger Kabuki

:clink:
 
Midas Whale67 said:
Might be, but you're just underscoring the fact that you aren't arguing it in a manner that encourages people to have confidence in your position.

You come across like a greenhorn. Your arguments smack of a law school exercise and your lack of maturity shines unfortunately bright.

As mom used to say: "it's not what you say, but how You say it".
Click to expand...

You see there's where you misjudge me, I don't believe in all that elitist bullshit about how you say things, I personally believe it's what you say that matters.
 
Jarod said:
SO he is not right.... He said the presidents power was absolute, case closed... then attacked my knowledge about Constitutional law because I pointed out the action still had to conform to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

On that point you are correct.

The presidents power is not absolute.
 
anatta said:
I realize you are not a Constitutional lawyer..the 9th orals were throwing in all kinds of superfluous
points -looking for "intent" -questioning policy; when the plain wording is what needs to be decided-
based on Constitutional authority and any relevant statutes....period
Click to expand...

Shut the fuck up you retarded shill.

What a fucking ignorant moron.
 
blackascoal said:
On that point you are correct.

The presidents power is not absolute.
Click to expand...

True, but I have never said the President's power is absolute. That's Jarod's strawman. Even in what he quoted where he thinks I said it I was very clear the Congress has plenary power, and that the President had this limited power through US CODE 1182.

My point wasn't difficult to understand, but Jarod simply refuses to be honest about what I said. I'd say I was disappointed, but I predicted that Jarod would continue to be dishonest and fight the strawman. I also continue to predict that eventually this EO will be upheld.
 
Actually, religion can be a factor. "Religious tests" are mentioned only once in the Constitution...Article 6:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
 
Damocles said:
True, but I have never said the President's power is absolute. That's Jarod's strawman. Even in what he quoted where he thinks I said it I was very clear the Congress has plenary power, and that the President had this limited power through US CODE 1182.

My point wasn't difficult to understand, but Jarod simply refuses to be honest about what I said. I'd say I was disappointed, but I predicted that Jarod would continue to be dishonest and fight the strawman. I also continue to predict that eventually this EO will be upheld.
Click to expand...

I said the president was limited by the Constitution and Damo responded that I don't understand the Comstitution.
 
Jarod said:
So, when Obama lost in the Supreme Court, you would have been okay with him going ahead anyway?
Click to expand...


I didn't say I would have approved, but I would have agreed that the Court couldn't do anything to stop him. It would have been up to the legislature to do their fucking jobs. But they are all cowards. It was never the intended role of the Courts to be the "final say" on the Constitution. Nowhere in the US Constitution is that power bestowed upon them. That they have grabbed that power, doesn't make it so
 
Damocles said:
True, but I have never said the President's power is absolute. That's Jarod's strawman. Even in what he quoted where he thinks I said it I was very clear the Congress has plenary power, and that the President had this limited power through US CODE 1182.

My point wasn't difficult to understand, but Jarod simply refuses to be honest about what I said. I'd say I was disappointed, but I predicted that Jarod would continue to be dishonest and fight the strawman. I also continue to predict that eventually this EO will be upheld.
Click to expand...

"What we know. Congress, per the constitution, has absolute authority over immigration and naturalization, which they then wrote into a statute giving the President authority for pretty much whatever reason he deemed of national security to simply ban immigration or travel from any nation.

My guess is the SCOTUS will rule in his favor." - Damocles
 
blackascoal said:
He's right on the merits and there is precedent to support that.

Whether the SC will rule in his favor is unknown. There are contributing factors they may consider .. such as none of the countries with actual involvement in 9/11 are on the list. They may consider Giuliani's comments that Trump wants to ban a religion .. which of course is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Just how can a legitimate judge consider anything outside the 4 corners of the executive order that has been challenged? They cannot. And when considering Campaign rhetoric....why was the entire rhetoric not considered, in the same breath candidate Trump synonymously uses the phrase ISLAMIC TERRORISTS with Muslim....and the reality of that statement is obvious 100% of Islamic terrorists are MUSLIM?

When the rhetoric is taken in context and subject matter content...the MUSLIMS being targeted by the supposed Muslim ban are Islamic terrorists...not 100% of all world Muslims...or the obvious would be found within the 4 corners of the Executive order...All 50 nations that are Muslim by majority would have been included in the language of the EO

Its always the same with the left....they do not consider the actual and verbatim text of any legal matter they become psychic and opine about things not found to exist in the actual matter before them. Its how they circumvent the Constitution...they add and take away as they please from the US rule of law.

The next question is how can the obvious danger from these refugees be ignored....when the record demonstrates that some 380 'foreigners' have been arrested and convicted for terrorist activities on US soil since 9/11.....all of them MUSLIM.

On the congressional record we find this fact documented; Another thing to consider....just why did the last Administration authorize the use of lethal force in Yemen via drone warfare...if Yemen is not a hotbed of terrorist activities...and the fact that one of those targets on the assassination hit list...was a US Citizen, gone to Yemen for the purpose of training and recruiting terrorists to make their way back to US soil?

If anyone can separate the word MUSLIM from ISLAMIC TERRORISM....please fill free, if you cannot, according to the left you are in breach of the Establishment Clause in the US constitution. With that logic or rather illogical reasoning. ALL Muslims are free to come and go as they please or you are voiding them of their constitutional protections. Really?
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
"What we know. Congress, per the constitution, has absolute authority over immigration and naturalization, which they then wrote into a statute giving the President authority for pretty much whatever reason he deemed of national security to simply ban immigration or travel from any nation.

My guess is the SCOTUS will rule in his favor." - Damocles
Click to expand...

I have underlined important words there: First, Congress, then later the limitation I stated on the limited authority the President was given in this statute.... As I stated, Congress granted the Executive limited authority from their plenary authority.

This quote proves that I have been stating the same thing from the beginning.

Later in that thread Jarod notes that Congress does have Plenary authority which means "absolute".

Anyway, he's going to continue to quote something that proves my point while dishonestly pretending I said something I did not. It's all good. He's proven once again that he is incapable of honestly making an argument in any circumstance. If I needed somebody to argue constitutional law I would never, under any circumstance, hire Jarod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top