Cat_Scratch Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Trump will win this. The code of law is already in place. Is this just a waste of American dollars or do we really need to make liberal changes to our governing laws? Is this ban on travel aimed at just the Muslims or a warning to ISIS. IMHO, this is just a waste of tax dollars the liberals initiated. Trump will win this battle. Why is it even a question? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ararar Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 What code of law would that be? Curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan in daytona Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Sure Cat, he will win; but shouldn't the new Prez think and plan a little better , with consultation from others, before signing off on new legislation. This fly by the seat of your pants leadership might burn all of our asses one day soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, dan in daytona said: Sure Cat, he will win; but shouldn't the new Prez think and plan a little better , with consultation from others, before signing off on new legislation. This fly by the seat of your pants leadership might burn all of our asses one day soon Today.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playballintxandmi Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Cat_Scratch said: Trump will win this. The code of law is already in place. Is this just a waste of American dollars or do we really need to make liberal changes to our governing laws? Is this ban on travel aimed at just the Muslims or a warning to ISIS. IMHO, this is just a waste of tax dollars the liberals initiated. Trump will win this battle. Why is it even a question? Trump might win this, and yes the statute that gives Trump the power to regulate based on national origin in the name of national security is in place, but that doesn't mean there isn't other inherent constitutional claims that have merit: 1. Is the implementation of the enabling statute constitutional? Even assuming the government has met it's burden for discrimination based on national origin (the gov't met a similiar burden in Korematsu involving the internment of Japanese-Americans, and it's fairly well-established that the president can discriminate based on national origin if national security is at issue), the statute is still subject to strict scrutiny due to national origin discrimination. Even with the concession that the government has this power (and I believe it does), the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result. At this point: the government needs to demonstrate why the legislature is the least restrictive possible. Given that this is intended to regulate for safety/national security I'm not sure why these 7 countries specifically were singled out. I can think of others that should have been on the list (if you are a proponent of exclusion) that weren't included and I'm sure there are arguments for why any 1 of the 7 nations on the list shouldn't be. Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E come to mind as countries that should have been on the list if national security were more than an ostensible rationale. 2. Due Process. There are established procedural rights, and lack thereof, for citizens and non-citizens. Visa-holders and people with permission to be in this country should be (and in fact are) afforded due process before removal proceedings. In other words: you can revoke someone's right to be here, but not without first holding a hearing and providing notice of such hearing. Turning people away at borders without some type of hearing strikes me as a denial of due process. If the court makes a ruling that visa holders either a) no longer have that right or b) never had that "right" and that notice/hearing is only a privilege then that's fine but a ruling is required. 3. Habeas Corpus. This particular ban's most immediate constitutional concern has been the de-facto suspension of habeas corpus. Individuals are being held without a hearing or appearing before a magistrate. In criminal proceedings a detention of more than 72 hours without appearing before a magistrate is unconstitutional. I don't know if there has been litigation to determine whether the 72 hr presumption applies to visa-holders or non-citizens. The detention of citizens at airports is somewhat of a novel constitutional concern: I would imagine that detainees would have to appear before some type of legal tribunal within a set amount of time (it doesn't need to be 72 hrs but law needs to be established). There are ALOT of other possible constitutional considerations that a wide-sweeping executive order could implicate, as well as legal principles that have been codified in many american statutes, treaties, etc. (e.g. non-refoulement) that are also at issue. This issue isn't nearly as simple as "waste of money or not" statutes often bring with them constitutional considerations related to process afforded to the class of people implicated by the statute that weren't considered by the legislature or executive at the time of signing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, Cat_Scratch said: Trump will win this. He hasn't gotten a court yet that agrees with him but sure. He'll win. Because you say so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, Cat_Scratch said: Is this just a waste of American dollars or do we really need to make liberal changes to our governing laws? You seem to be as lost as Pops usually is. The courts uphold the laws. So Trump is the on attempting to make 'changes' to the laws. The court is merely saying it's unconstitutional. Good lord we have some stupid people in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolebull813 Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 13 minutes ago, LOSer said: You seem to be as lost as Pops usually is. The courts uphold the laws. So Trump is the on attempting to make 'changes' to the laws. The court is merely saying it's unconstitutional. Good lord we have some stupid people in this country. What's unconstitutional? Putting a temporary travel ban on countries that are linked to terrorism? Man you liberals would put your pride over safety and that's what was so scary about Killary and her goons possibly getting elected 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 19 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said: What's unconstitutional? Did you read the decision? Of course not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 19 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said: Putting a temporary travel ban on countries that are linked to terrorism? But that's not what happened. Saudi Arabia is one of the leading producers of terrorism. No ban. It's arbitrary and it revoked legal and valid green cards used by permanent residents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 20 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said: Man you liberals would put your pride over safety and that's what was so scary about Killary and her goons possibly getting elected The law supersedes your delusional concerns about safety. Principles are something that you stand for regardless of the consequences. You obviously have no principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolebull813 Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, LOSer said: The law supersedes your delusional concerns about safety. Principles are something that you stand for regardless of the consequences. You obviously have no principles. That mindset contributed to Trump being elected. America seen what was happening in Europe and the Middle East and concern was growing that Hillary would only strengthen ISIS and Islam. We are slowly but surely getting out of that crazy liberal mindset that everyone needs a trophy and safe space. This is only the beginning ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said: That mindset contributed to Trump being elected. Standing up for principles definitely frightens people like you who have none. If that made you vote for Trump then you're as stupid and delusional as we all thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 13 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said: America seen what was happening in Europe and the Middle East and concern was growing that Hillary would only strengthen ISIS and Islam. America voted for Hilary. You really need to brush up on your facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOSer Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 13 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said: We are slowly but surely getting out of that crazy liberal mindset that everyone needs a trophy and safe space. This is unintentionally ironic given that banning people from other countries and attempting to isolate yourself from the world is the ultimate safe space. You're the deluded weakling who needs protection from the outside world. Not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, LOSer said: You're the deluded weakling who needs protection from the outside world. Not me. It's easy to scare the weak. Trump, campaigned on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pops Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 1 hour ago, LOSer said: But that's not what happened. Saudi Arabia is one of the leading producers of terrorism. No ban. It's arbitrary and it revoked legal and valid green cards used by permanent residents. You clearly don't know what "arbitrary" means Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pops Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 37 minutes ago, TheRealCAJ said: It's easy to scare the weak. Trump, campaigned on it. I don't disagree He copied Democratic tactics of the last 100 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pops Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 51 minutes ago, LOSer said: America voted for Hilary. You really need to brush up on your facts. I missed it -- when was her inauguration? Can you just put "Hillary won the popular vote" as your sig line and save 1,000 posts? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 10 minutes ago, Pops said: He copied Democratic tactics of the last 100 years I think you got that terribly backwards, but it wouldn't be the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 52 minutes ago, Pops said: I missed it -- when was her inauguration? Can you just put "Hillary won the popular vote" as your sig line and save 1,000 posts? LMAO...He also still believes sta beat DBP. That guy is in severe denial. I actually feel sorry for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolebull813 Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 1 minute ago, I AM IRONMAN said: LMAO...He also still believes sta beat DBP. That guy is in severe denial. I actually feel sorry for him. That clown is beyond delusional. kooks that Believe only down the left line agree with him. But even Hillary herself wouldn't believe that STA beat Bosco ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted February 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, LOSer said: You seem to be as lost as Pops usually is. The courts uphold the laws. So Trump is the on attempting to make 'changes' to the laws. The court is merely saying it's unconstitutional. Good lord we have some stupid people in this country. So what you are saying is that it is okay for some presidents to put travel bans on some countries but not Trump? What is the Difference in what Obama and Clinton did that Trump is trying to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted February 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, LOSer said: He hasn't gotten a court yet that agrees with him but sure. He'll win. Because you say so. Well I guess if you want Trump to win it because I said so then okay, But from what I've been listening to from constitutional Lawyers, they all agree Trump will win and are not sure why it is even going to the supreme court. I believe it's because some glory hound judge wants his name in print. Plain speak... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted February 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, LOSer said: But that's not what happened. Saudi Arabia is one of the leading producers of terrorism. No ban. It's arbitrary and it revoked legal and valid green cards used by permanent residents. I thought you advocated that Obama has all but cleaned out ISIS? Maybe Saudi Arabia is where the USA has most of our Middle Eastern Military. Maybe you can find Saudi Arabia in the acronym "ISIS" the Islamic State of Iran and Syria, or shouldn't it say ISISSA to include Saudi Arabia? Maybe You just want something to argue about that is anti Republican? Maybe the whole world is on Terrorist alert because Trump is President, not because the Islamic State is trying to terrorize most of the free nation's, especially those friendly with the USA, or the nations with Christian Ideas? Do you agree that those nations temporarily banned, are peace loving nations toward the USA, or do you feel that those listed are under siege by Islamic rebels and there is a possibility that those few Rebels, given a chance, would do harm to citizens on US soil? Do you think you are smarter than Trump and his administration. This is a chance to show you are capable of critical thinking without bleeding Blind Liberal Bias. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.