A Burning Question about the NYC attack and terrorism in general...

[Sundance508]

So, nobody will address the fact that every country listed never attacks us while we sign arms deals with Saudi Arabia?

You disingenuous partisan hacks.

At least we are getting something out of it. What is our country getting when terrorist judges stop Trump from banning these Muslims?

the first amendment doesn't let the orange sociopath ban muslims. perhaps that confuses you....

wackjob.

Have you ever read the first amendment? Here it is......... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It has nothing to do with immigration. Trumps ban was not based on religion...it was based on a proclivity for terrorism in certain foreign countries. It did not ban all muslims...only those from certain areas known to present a danger to America because of their history of terrorism.

you understand there is an entire body of case law construing the first amendment, right, shookerdoodle?

and islam is a religion, not a nationality, snooks, and is entitled to the protection of the first amendment. or is that beyond you?

Over at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), about 200 staffers have signed an open letter arguing in favor of restrictions on speech, a proposed departure from the group's long, laudable history of defending First Amendment rights, reports The New York Times:

 

[Sundance508]

Eric Posner, a professor at the respected University of Chicago Law School and specialist in executive power, says there is precedent to support a Trump-style ban on Muslim immigrants. He estimates the odds are about “50/50” that the Supreme Court would uphold Trump’s plan, were it ever enacted. Trump’s proposal is “just a terrible idea” that “violates important values” and does not “enhance security,” Posner says, but as a legal matter, it may be constitutional.

Posner discussed the legal issues in depth with MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber:

Ari Melber: On what basis could this type of proposal be legal and constitutional?

Eric Posner: First, the immigration law delegates to the president extensive powers to exclude people who he thinks might threaten security, or any way might be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Second, as a matter of Supreme Court precedent, the general rule – called the Plenary Power Doctrine – is that the normal, substantive, constitutional protections that we’re accustomed to do not, generally speaking, apply to the immigration context. For example, a domestic law that applied only to Muslims in some way – the [constitutional] rule against such a domestic law wouldn’t apply to an immigration law.

AM: Would that be the same then for race? Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold a proposal to only let in, say, white people into the United States?

EP: Historically, there have been statutes like that, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Now, I do think that it’s possible for the Supreme Court to change its views on this matter. If, you know, Trump ever became president, and he tried to prevent non-white people from entering, or Muslims from entering, and somebody challenged that – the Supreme Court could depart from these old rules and create a new set of doctrines. I could imagine that happening, but that would be a change in the law.

AM: Do you think that this proposal would be upheld?

EP: Well I think it’s about 50/50. So in other words, if the Supreme Court just followed its precedents, it would uphold this proposal.

With gay marriage, [we saw] the Supreme Court change its view. I could imagine the court doing that. Part of what’s going on here is that most of these cases are pretty old, not all of them, but the most significant precedents go back to the first half of the last century, and earlier. So sometimes the Supreme Court changes its views.

AM: What about the view that regardless of executive immigration powers, a rule to pick one religion over another would flatly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

EP: The problem is that people have made these arguments before about other clauses in the Bill of Rights, and even in the First Amendment, like the free speech clause. In the past, people have been excluded from the U.S. simply on the basis of their viewpoints. For example, people who are Marxists or Communists were excluded. Now, the government is not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their viewpoints if they are citizens – so the meaning of these rulings is that the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, don’t apply to non-citizens, at least when they want to enter the country.

Now, it is true that Supreme Court has never approved a statute – held one way or another – that explicitly excluded people on the basis of religion. So it’s conceivable that they could say, “Well in decisions about whether non-citizens can enter the country, you can discriminate on the basis of speech or viewpoint, but not on the basis of religion.” I mean, they could say that, but I don’t see why they would.

AM: The court might be concerned that such a religious ban – excluding one major religion – is a potential endorsement to another religion or religions. To take it one step further, if the U.S. said they would only admit followers of one religion, then as a rule, you’re talking about an immigration power. But as a First Amendment issue, might that be seen as an endorsement of religion?

EP: It would be, but in these old cases by the Supreme Court, the court is saying the First Amendment doesn’t apply to immigration decisions, at all. Basically that is what they say. So if you interpret the cases as saying that, which is the most plausible interpretation, then those cases apply as much as the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment] as to the other causes.

AM: For the lay audience, what would your explanation be of the importance of the recency or antiquity of a precedent? Certainty going back before the Civil Rights era, old case law on Civil Rights isn’t very useful now. This particular issue has been less tested, because federal law on immigration, in the modern era, has not experimented with this kind of discriminatory or exclusionary clause. What would you explain to a lay person the issues of how recent a holding is and its power?

EP: Well I think the Supreme Court does reflect the values of the public at any given time. So as public values change, so do the Supreme Court’s views.

As a legal matter, the court is supposed to adhere to precedents in old cases, but from time to time it does depart from those precedents; it changes the law, because of changing values.

That’s why its hard to make a prediction about what the court would do if Trump’s proposal actually became law and came before the court. I think it’s perfectly possible that people just take religious values much more seriously today than they did in the past. I would add also that in the past, although the Establishment Clause has been part of our law since the beginning, in the past there were all kinds of religious discrimination that was widely acceptable. There was discrimination against Mormons, and against Catholics, and against Jews. This discrimination was often embodied in the law, and it was just considered a part of political culture of the country.

Today that’s changed. Religious values are much more powerfully entrenched in our political culture, and in the law, and so that’s why you could imagine the Court coming up the other way if this came up.

AM: Could a president enact this kind of rule on their own? Or would the Congress have to legislate it?

EP:That’s a harder question. [Federal immigration law] does give the authority to the president to act on his own. He’s given just a tremendous amount of discretion to decide that certain classes of aliens are inadmissible. So he could do that. Now the question is whether the constitutional limits that we were talking about before might apply if the president acts alone.

There’s a case that I quote called Kleindienst, which suggests that if the President is going to identify a class of people, it has to be bona fide and in good faith.

Read this story on msnbc.com.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...obably-legal&usg=AOvVaw2H3h6D5Kp7qzRX-Zjr-uV5

 

[Sundance508]

Did obama ban all arab christians from immigrating to America?

No.....but he let in very few. He favored muslim immigrants.


The United States Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria

 

[Sundance508]

What you need to know about Trump's immigration plan for the middle east.

What you need to know about Trump's immigration plan

 

[Rambunctious]

Did obama ban all arab christian from immigrating to America?

No.....but he let in very few. He favored muslim immigrants

Obama always favored the radical Sharia law Muslims over Christian Arabs and America friendly Muslim Kurds.
If the public ever learns the whole truth about Obama's anti American administration and the lengths they went to to harm our nation the people would scream for justice. They would want everyone of them locked up including Obama himself. Does our justice system have the guts to follow through? We will see.

 

[Markle]

the first amendment doesn't let the orange sociopath ban muslims. perhaps that confuses you....

Please, who us the executive order banning Muslims.

If you cannot, and of course you cannot, that would mean you are lying. Right or wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did obama ban all arab christians from immigrating to America?

No.....but he let in very few. He favored muslim immigrants.


The United States Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria

Probably because many had the same name as him.

 

[jillian]

and how should that be done, idiot? do you take the internet away from angry men? if they did, you would be off-line permanently.

Hah! You have no grasp on this issue whatsoever, jillian. Though the internet is an effective medium for terrorists to spread their vile ideologies, it also spurs the like minded into action. I never said anything about "taking the internet away."

a lot more people have been killed by terrorism in this country since 9/11 by white christian terrorists.

Do you have stats or links to back that up? I'm not denying there are "White Christian terrorists" but am simply refusing to acknowledge the deflection.

do we take them out of the country?

You know, these seem awfully like your own suggestions, not mine. Project much?

the numbers are fact, dearie... go do your homework. but I do know that not once have any of the trumptards done anything to control their angry white supremacist christian terrorists.

no... those "suggestions", are based on what is clear in the pathetic rants of the trump idolators.

but cute diversion.

On IGNORE after having to hear that kind of bigotry.

oh I hope you blocked me you loon.then maybe I won't have to read your garbage any more.

you're the bigots cookie... not us.

it is not bigotry to point out what you are. but I know that white christian supremacists have tried that for decades.... probably a lot longer.

you're dismissed now, crazy little trumptardian snowflake.

Have you ever tried to make a post that does not primarily consist of name calling? Is that all you are capable of? Apparantly so.

interesting question from a "person" who started a post to me with "have you ever read the first amendment" and then had to have it explained that islam was a religion ..... which is covered by the first amendment.

 

[Tuatara]

The whole premise of this post is ridiculous. Regardless whether a Democratic or Republican president is at the helm they all have troops over in the middle east killing thousands of Muslims every year. Whatever reasons the administration has for all these killings more and more Muslims will join terrorist organizations from home and abroad. America's actions have been recruiting terrorism for years.

 

[Slyhunter]

Hah! You have no grasp on this issue whatsoever, jillian. Though the internet is an effective medium for terrorists to spread their vile ideologies, it also spurs the like minded into action. I never said anything about "taking the internet away."

Do you have stats or links to back that up? I'm not denying there are "White Christian terrorists" but am simply refusing to acknowledge the deflection.

You know, these seem awfully like your own suggestions, not mine. Project much?

the numbers are fact, dearie... go do your homework. but I do know that not once have any of the trumptards done anything to control their angry white supremacist christian terrorists.

no... those "suggestions", are based on what is clear in the pathetic rants of the trump idolators.

but cute diversion.

On IGNORE after having to hear that kind of bigotry.

oh I hope you blocked me you loon.then maybe I won't have to read your garbage any more.

you're the bigots cookie... not us.

it is not bigotry to point out what you are. but I know that white christian supremacists have tried that for decades.... probably a lot longer.

you're dismissed now, crazy little trumptardian snowflake.

Have you ever tried to make a post that does not primarily consist of name calling? Is that all you are capable of? Apparantly so.

interesting question from a "person" who started a post to me with "have you ever read the first amendment" and then had to have it explained that islam was a religion ..... which is covered by the first amendment.

worshiping the spaghetti monster is a religion. Worshiping money could be a religion. Anything and everything can be a religion. Maybe we should change that.

 

[Slyhunter]

The whole premise of this post is ridiculous. Regardless whether a Democratic or Republican president is at the helm they all have troops over in the middle east killing thousands of Muslims every year. Whatever reasons the administration has for all these killings more and more Muslims will join terrorist organizations from home and abroad. America's actions have been recruiting terrorism for years.

So you think if we stopped killing Muslims they will stop trying to create a world caliphate?
This is no game, it is survival. It is us or them.

 

[BlackSand]

Why send thoughts and prayers to victims of terrorism

Because one is a human being and is capable of having and expressing sympathy to another human being who's suffered the consequences of the loss or physical injury of a loved one (or themselves). Regardless of how or why it happened, the capacity for having and expressing sympathy for it having happened is an aspect of good character.

Kind of like supporting unfunded liabilities to maintain the status quo is what some people believe to be an aspect of good character.

.

 

[Timmy]

Dear Democrats...

Why send thoughts and prayers to victims of terrorism when you resist any attempt to save lives by addressing the problem directly? Why bother when you're too consumed by your own political agenda? Does this not make your "thoughts and prayers" meaningless?

Spare me your sanctimony about "the Muslim ban". What happened in New York yesterday requires far more than "thoughts and prayers"; we need action, to weed out the radicals who distort their own faith to take innocent life. You want us to have sympathy on the refugees fleeing their war torn countries, but apparently none on the Americans that some of these wolves in sheep's clothing kill indiscriminately.

I've heard and seen enough. I've stopped short of labeling all of Islam as a dangerous ideology, mainly because I know Muslims that put some of the best practicing Christians in our society under a table. Christianity had to deal with its radical elements, so too should Islam. If not, that is what armed conflict is for. We will deal with its radical elements if it will not.

Do more than pray or mourn, stop standing in the way. Do your job and put the safety and welfare of the American citizenry first. Radical Islamic Terrorism is real. What will you do about it?

Sincerely,

An upset American citizen

You act like we do nothing to target terrorism. We spent millions a year fighting terrorism. We also changed the number of loss to fight terrorism. Can you say the same about gun crimes?

 

[BlackSand]

You act like we do nothing to target terrorism. We spent millions a year fighting terrorism. We also changed the number of loss to fight terrorism. Can you say the same about gun crimes?

Well ... Some of us can look at the bright side ... At least we are armed if we are going to end up fighting the battle here ...

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dear Democrats...

Why send thoughts and prayers to victims of terrorism when you resist any attempt to save lives by addressing the problem directly? Why bother when you're too consumed by your own political agenda? Does this not make your "thoughts and prayers" meaningless?

Spare me your sanctimony about "the Muslim ban". What happened in New York yesterday requires far more than "thoughts and prayers"; we need action, to weed out the radicals who distort their own faith to take innocent life. You want us to have sympathy on the refugees fleeing their war torn countries, but apparently none on the Americans that some of these wolves in sheep's clothing kill indiscriminately.

I've heard and seen enough. I've stopped short of labeling all of Islam as a dangerous ideology, mainly because I know Muslims that put some of the best practicing Christians in our society under a table. Christianity had to deal with its radical elements, so too should Islam. If not, that is what armed conflict is for. We will deal with its radical elements if it will not.

Do more than pray or mourn, stop standing in the way. Do your job and put the safety and welfare of the American citizenry first. Radical Islamic Terrorism is real. What will you do about it?

Sincerely,

An upset American citizen

You act like we do nothing to target terrorism. We spent millions a year fighting terrorism. We also changed the number of loss to fight terrorism. Can you say the same about gun crimes?

Sure you can. Until the Ferguson effect, gun crime and violence has been decreasing since the mid 90s. We were on the right path.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The whole premise of this post is ridiculous. Regardless whether a Democratic or Republican president is at the helm they all have troops over in the middle east killing thousands of Muslims every year. Whatever reasons the administration has for all these killings more and more Muslims will join terrorist organizations from home and abroad. America's actions have been recruiting terrorism for years.

Maybe our President should travel the world and apologize for all our evil. Oh, wait a minute, we tried that already.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[BlackSand]

Sure you can. Until the Ferguson effect, gun crime and violence has been decreasing since the mid 90s. We were on the right path.

Everything gets lost in the minutia of political context and governmental incompetency.

To suggest the inability of the government to effectively stem the influx of terrorists into our country ... Or protect us from senseless gun crime ...
Is not a sufficient argument that we should surrender the right to defend ourselves.

Even if you want to go as far as discussing an unarmed black man gunned down by law enforcement ... The basic facts remain.
The black man wouldn't be the victim of a civilian's illegal use of a firearm ... They would be the victim of an incompetent government agent pulling the trigger.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Except none of the countries on Trump's ban list ever carry out terror attacks in America. In fact he took Sudan off the list the very same day a Sudanese immigrant attacked us. It's nothing more than meaningless lip service for his supporters.

That Sudanese immigrant had been in the US for 20 years.

Epic FAIL on your part!

If you want to apply some lip service, go right ahead!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Except none of the countries on Trump's ban list ever carry out terror attacks in America. In fact he took Sudan off the list the very same day a Sudanese immigrant attacked us. It's nothing more than meaningless lip service for his supporters.

It doesn't matter. Trump could put a ban on every country where terrorists came from, and some Commie leftist activist judge will still try to stop him.

It does matter. He imposed a completely useless ban and his supporters are like, "Well, that's that. Go Trump!"

See my previous post outlining your ignorance. The ban is not useless.

 

[aaronleland]

Except none of the countries on Trump's ban list ever carry out terror attacks in America. In fact he took Sudan off the list the very same day a Sudanese immigrant attacked us. It's nothing more than meaningless lip service for his supporters.

That Sudanese immigrant had been in the US for 20 years.

Epic FAIL on your part!

If you want to apply some lip service, go right ahead!

And if that immigrant from Uzbekistan had been here for only 5 minutes it wouldn't matter because Uzbekistan isn't on Trump's list.