Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: I don't see it

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    14,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Here's the constitutionality argument, as I understand it: Between the equal protection clause and the establishment clause, the government cannot show preference on the basis of religion. And, even though the EO has been carefully worded so as to be neutral with regard to religion, its effect is primarily toward Muslims. And, the court can take into consideration Trump's repeated calls for a Muslim ban during the campaign, his tweets, Giuliani's comments, and so on to determine that this order is directed toward Muslims, even if the wording obscures the intent.

    Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional
    The "Muslim ban" angle doesn't work because too many Muslims are free to move in and out of the country. I get the tortured (so to speak) logic but it is a conclusion looking for reasoning. Trump didn't go after Muslims per se; Trump went after Muslims* who he could get away with going after.

    Trump isn't being unconstitutional. Trump is being an asshole.




    *Also, Muslims he had no business interests with but that is just going to be a fixture of his administration and I don't feel like arguing with the Market Idolaters who say I don't understand because he is a businessman and blah blah everything done for profit is beyond good and evil blah.
    "35% of my party believes that Obama's a Muslim born in Kenya; [Trump's] locked that crowd down."

    ~ Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Here's the constitutionality argument, as I understand it: Between the equal protection clause and the establishment clause, the government cannot show preference on the basis of religion. And, even though the EO has been carefully worded so as to be neutral with regard to religion, its effect is primarily toward Muslims. And, the court can take into consideration Trump's repeated calls for a Muslim ban during the campaign, his tweets, Giuliani's comments, and so on to determine that this order is directed toward Muslims, even if the wording obscures the intent.

    Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional
    I'm not sure that's right. I'd have to go back and re-read some things. There are some rights that are only for citizens, some that apply to all residents and still others that apply to everyone, regardless of immigration status. I do recall that the 14th Amendment, for example, refers to "citizens" in one clause and "persons" in one or 2 of the others. People with no claim to residency or citizenship, who have not yet been admitted to the US (and for legal purposes, you may not be "in the US" until you pass Customs), may have no Constitutional protection at all.
    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. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sunday, October 6th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,766
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    Carter? You are pushing 40 years with that. Law, much to the aged's chagrin, is not static. Our idea of "arms" differs greatly with those who wrote the 2nd Amendment, not to mention "equality" and human being.

    The dude is still alive. It's not like it was Andy Jackson who did this. Well, not exactly this.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sunday, October 6th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,766
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    The "Muslim ban" angle doesn't work because too many Muslims are free to move in and out of the country. I get the tortured (so to speak) logic but it is a conclusion looking for reasoning. Trump didn't go after Muslims per se; Trump went after Muslims* who he could get away with going after.

    Trump isn't being unconstitutional. Trump is being an asshole.




    *Also, Muslims he had no business interests with but that is just going to be a fixture of his administration and I don't feel like arguing with the Market Idolaters who say I don't understand because he is a businessman and blah blah everything done for profit is beyond good and evil blah.

    That is a reasonable argument. He is not being unconstitutional. Whether or not he is an asshole, or tossing out red meat for his supporters, or fulfilling campaign promises to keep America safe...well those are at least arguable.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:29 AM
    Posts
    14,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    The "Muslim ban" angle doesn't work because too many Muslims are free to move in and out of the country. I get the tortured (so to speak) logic but it is a conclusion looking for reasoning. Trump didn't go after Muslims per se; Trump went after Muslims* who he could get away with going after.

    Trump isn't being unconstitutional. Trump is being an asshole.




    *Also, Muslims he had no business interests with but that is just going to be a fixture of his administration and I don't feel like arguing with the Market Idolaters who say I don't understand because he is a businessman and blah blah everything done for profit is beyond good and evil blah.
    From the article:

    There is a popular counterargument to all constitutional challenges to the executive order—one often cited by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway—that goes like this: Because the new policy does not target all Muslim-majority countries, it cannot be considered an act of discrimination against Muslims. Legally, this is a weak argument. A violation of the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and RFRA is still a violation, even if it affects only one person, let alone the large numbers affected by this policy. To see how absurd Conway’s logic is, consider this: If the president signs an executive order that discriminates against some African-Americans, it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t discriminate against all African-Americans—it’s still illegal.

    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:29 AM
    Posts
    14,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    I'm not sure that's right. I'd have to go back and re-read some things. There are some rights that are only for citizens, some that apply to all residents and still others that apply to everyone, regardless of immigration status. I do recall that the 14th Amendment, for example, refers to "citizens" in one clause and "persons" in one or 2 of the others. People with no claim to residency or citizenship, who have not yet been admitted to the US (and for legal purposes, you may not be "in the US" until you pass Customs), may have no Constitutional protection at all.
    Also from the article:

    It doesn’t matter, by the way, whether the Muslims in question are citizens or noncitizens, green card holders, visa holders or refugees. The Equal Protection Clause explicitly prohibits “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court made this clear in Plyler v. Doe, when it protected the rights of non-citizen children in Texas, striking down a denial of school funds to the children of undocumented parents. This means that all foreign travelers on U.S. soil—those waiting at U.S. airports, for example—are protected.

    More than that, I’d argue that even Muslims not on U.S. soil are protected. Recent case law suggests that no act by a government official—no matter to whom it applies—can be based on disapproval of a race, ethnicity or religion. In other words, when it comes to Equal Protection, it’s the motive of the government and its agents that matters. If a government official seeks to carry out Trump’s order and bar entry into the country, that is a violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Also from the article:
    I read the article. It's one person's interpretation. I would need to seriously consider the actual language of the laws involved (because I'm pretty sure Plyler is not the most apposite case) in the context of the Equal Protection Clause. It may be that the critical phrase is "within its jurisdiction."

    Since Bok is at least as pissed off about this as you are, frankly, the fact that he concludes the action is abhorrent but legal is pretty persuasive.
    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. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:29 AM
    Posts
    14,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not pissed. He said he didn't see a case, so I presented the case that's been made as I understand it. I'm just saying there's an argument to be made. I don't think it's bulletproof, or a slam dunk, and in any case I'm no legal whiz. But the judge that issued the TRO found that the challenge was "likely to succeed on the merits," which I assume means it's not ridiculously weak.

    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    I'm not pissed. He said he didn't see a case, so I presented the case that's been made as I understand it. I'm just saying there's an argument to be made. I don't think it's bulletproof, or a slam dunk, and in any case I'm no legal whiz. But the judge that issued the TRO found that the challenge was "likely to succeed on the merits," which I assume means it's not ridiculously weak.
    No, I meant pissed about the substance of the EO, not pissed at Bok.

    One thing I always tell young lawyers: there's no such thing as a slam dunk in litigation. It's why parties settle.
    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. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Posts
    11,515
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.conservativereview.com/c...ive-presidents


    According to the report, here are the number of times each president, since Reagan, has limited immigration to specific groups of people:

    Ronald Reagan - Five times
    George H. W Bush - One time
    Bill Clinton - 12 times
    George W. Bush - Six times
    Barack Obama - 19 times

    Not included in the CRS report is that Hillary Clinton's State Department, without a presidential action, suspended all refugee applications from Iraq for six months in 2011.




    This entire issue is a crock of shit.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  11. Likes Tom Servo liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •