ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton

[Coyote]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

That argument doesn't hold water in the 4 corners doctrine. I think the 4th will uphold it.

.

It's a difficult argument to make, while I oppose the ban because I do believe the intent is clearly what Trump had said, I'm not sure if that can be used or how far it can be taken.

What you believe as no bearing on the facts. And the fact is the purpose behind this executive order had always been national security and not banning Muslims.

The ruling in the case was purely political. This is obvious to anyone who read the decision because the judge declared national security to be a non secular issue and declined to do any actual analysis to support his nonsensical claim.

Now if you'd like to explain how national security is solely a religious issue, be my guest. But I suspect that everyone getting upset over the order is avoiding this question for a reason

That "fact" is not supported by Trump's statements, his directive to Giuliani, and his first attempt at an EO where Muslims were singled out in those countries.

Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ reviewed the order before it was signed and said the order was legal.

.

Obama had EOS challenged in courts despite being reviewed by the legal counsel, so that doesn't mean they will necessarily pass legal muster, just that it will in their judgement.

 

[Coyote]

A law can be OK on its face , but unconstitutional if used for a bias reason.

Do you tools think the courts haven't dealt with Jim Crow laws before ?

Irrelevant. national security is not a bias reason

So the prez can effectively ban guns and claim "national security "?

Guns are a constitutionally protected right. Immigrations isn't. Geeze.

Freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Establishment cause ring a bell?

An example : Obama bans all Christians From immigrating and only allows Muslim to come into America because he wants a Muslim country. Constitutional??? Of course not !

Trump didn't exclude all muslims, just ones where there was no adequate central government with sufficient records to properly investigate them.

.

Like Iran?

 

[Coyote]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Careful, your partisan slip is showing........
Actually the law is the law, interpretation hypocrisy as
what you're promoting here as no " discrimination intent" as implied would ever pass legal muster in a much higher court of law (SCOTUS).

Actually no, not in this case. Read what I said (no one else did).

I'm not saying whether or not the court argument is valid - in fact, I think it's kind of stretched. I'm utterly opposed to the ban, for a variety of reasons, and I have no doubt about what the intent behind it is - but unlike the first EO, the second one is better crafted legally. OK?

What I said was if Clinton had put out that EO - the same argument can't be used to bring it down - ie "intent" expressed in campaign statements or statements she made while in office because she hasn't made any regarding banning Muslims. But Trump has. So if it were a Clinton EO, you'd have to find some sort of other argument to attack it with.

There's no hypocrisy - unless Clinton had been making comments on completely banning Muslims, and she hadn't. So you'd have to find another argument.

If you listen to the audio in the OPs link, Clintons name was never mentioned, just if another candidate had become president and done it, would it be legal. After some dancing the ACLU attorney admitted it would be.

.

Ok that was my assumption then. But the point still stands, without the statements you couldn't apply the same argument.

 

[Slyhunter]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

You can't make a court argument that an action is legal--- except we don't like the guy who said it! So it is just illegal for HIM! What is at question is the legality of the BAN, not the person invoking it. The ban is the SAME no matter who is using it. The travel ban was based on an Obama determination that a certain set of countries were high risk of ISIS member invasion. And baring people from those countries is no more a religious exclusion than baring Germans from Hitler's time---- because Islam ISN'T A RELIGION, it is a political system! This is just another case of judicial activism. It will be overturned.

Actually Obama's ban had substantial differences, which is why it wasn't challenged.

Just because you don't like Islam doesn't suddenly make it "not a religion" after 1300 years

Religion it seems can be anything.
[paste:font size="4"]Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
We Believe an all-mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster alters the universe in a way that makes it *appear* that the scientific method is sound, that humanity's ...

 

[toobfreak]

Actually Obama's ban had substantial differences, which is why it wasn't challenged.

They being? And when was Obama's ban invoked?

Just because you don't like Islam doesn't suddenly make it "not a religion" after 1300 years

Did I say I didn't like it, Coyote? It may have a philosophical base and faith within it, but it is founded on Sharia Law and it isn't I which says it is a political system, it is THEY. Read the Koran.

 

[OKTexas]

That argument doesn't hold water in the 4 corners doctrine. I think the 4th will uphold it.

.

It's a difficult argument to make, while I oppose the ban because I do believe the intent is clearly what Trump had said, I'm not sure if that can be used or how far it can be taken.

What you believe as no bearing on the facts. And the fact is the purpose behind this executive order had always been national security and not banning Muslims.

The ruling in the case was purely political. This is obvious to anyone who read the decision because the judge declared national security to be a non secular issue and declined to do any actual analysis to support his nonsensical claim.

Now if you'd like to explain how national security is solely a religious issue, be my guest. But I suspect that everyone getting upset over the order is avoiding this question for a reason

That "fact" is not supported by Trump's statements, his directive to Giuliani, and his first attempt at an EO where Muslims were singled out in those countries.

Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ reviewed the order before it was signed and said the order was legal.

.

Obama had EOS challenged in courts despite being reviewed by the legal counsel, so that doesn't mean they will necessarily pass legal muster, just that it will in their judgement.

No order under this particular authority has been stayed by the courts. My sense is the order will be upheld in the 4th circuit and the stay will be upheld in the 9th circuit, which will set up a SCOTUS review and the order will be upheld there 7-2. We'll see.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Irrelevant. national security is not a bias reason

So the prez can effectively ban guns and claim "national security "?

Guns are a constitutionally protected right. Immigrations isn't. Geeze.

Freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Establishment cause ring a bell?

An example : Obama bans all Christians From immigrating and only allows Muslim to come into America because he wants a Muslim country. Constitutional??? Of course not !

Trump didn't exclude all muslims, just ones where there was no adequate central government with sufficient records to properly investigate them.

.

Like Iran?

We don't have diplomatic relations or governmental cooperation in Iran.

.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Careful, your partisan slip is showing........
Actually the law is the law, interpretation hypocrisy as
what you're promoting here as no " discrimination intent" as implied would ever pass legal muster in a much higher court of law (SCOTUS).

Actually no, not in this case. Read what I said (no one else did).

I'm not saying whether or not the court argument is valid - in fact, I think it's kind of stretched. I'm utterly opposed to the ban, for a variety of reasons, and I have no doubt about what the intent behind it is - but unlike the first EO, the second one is better crafted legally. OK?

What I said was if Clinton had put out that EO - the same argument can't be used to bring it down - ie "intent" expressed in campaign statements or statements she made while in office because she hasn't made any regarding banning Muslims. But Trump has. So if it were a Clinton EO, you'd have to find some sort of other argument to attack it with.

There's no hypocrisy - unless Clinton had been making comments on completely banning Muslims, and she hadn't. So you'd have to find another argument.

If you listen to the audio in the OPs link, Clintons name was never mentioned, just if another candidate had become president and done it, would it be legal. After some dancing the ACLU attorney admitted it would be.

.

Ok that was my assumption then. But the point still stands, without the statements you couldn't apply the same argument.

Which takes us back to the 4 corners doctrine.

.

 

[Coyote]

So the prez can effectively ban guns and claim "national security "?

Guns are a constitutionally protected right. Immigrations isn't. Geeze.

Freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Establishment cause ring a bell?

An example : Obama bans all Christians From immigrating and only allows Muslim to come into America because he wants a Muslim country. Constitutional??? Of course not !

Trump didn't exclude all muslims, just ones where there was no adequate central government with sufficient records to properly investigate them.

.

Like Iran?

We don't have diplomatic relations or governmental cooperation in Iran.

.

We have a degree of cooperation, vis a vis nuclear deal. We've also had travel between the two nations for some time, and there is a adequate central government with sufficient records - Iranian nationals have not been among those launching terror attacks on us. There is no "national security" interest in having them on the list.

 

[Coyote]

Actually Obama's ban had substantial differences, which is why it wasn't challenged.

They being? And when was Obama's ban invoked?

There are considerable differences between the two.

For example, Obama's was very narrow in scope while Trumps was extremely broad. And, ACLU objected to it as well.

H.R. 158 did not actually block travel or immigration by residents or citizens of any particular countries; rather, it terminated travel privileges afforded persons previously covered under the Visa Waiver Program, as described in a letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to members of Congress objecting to the bill:

Just because you don't like Islam doesn't suddenly make it "not a religion" after 1300 years

Did I say I didn't like it, Coyote? It may have a philosophical base and faith within it, but it is founded on Sharia Law and it isn't I which says it is a political system, it is THEY. Read the Koran.

I've read it. And some of the history as well. Sharia is analogous to Jewish law - Gods path on how to live and act. If you are going to claim it's a "political system" then you have to apply the same standards to Judaism.

Codes of law do not make it "not a religion" - in fact, that claim about Islam sprouted spontaneiously post 9/11 - it's kind of ridiculous to claim a religion, that has been around and recognized world wide (and in fact still is) for 1300 years is, now, suddenly in the past few decades "not a religion" because people hate Muslims and that is the essence of the argument. How do you attack a religion? By claiming it's not a religion. Then you start removing protections and rights from it's followers. It's a classic methodology for discrimmination.

 

[Coyote]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Careful, your partisan slip is showing........
Actually the law is the law, interpretation hypocrisy as
what you're promoting here as no " discrimination intent" as implied would ever pass legal muster in a much higher court of law (SCOTUS).

Actually no, not in this case. Read what I said (no one else did).

I'm not saying whether or not the court argument is valid - in fact, I think it's kind of stretched. I'm utterly opposed to the ban, for a variety of reasons, and I have no doubt about what the intent behind it is - but unlike the first EO, the second one is better crafted legally. OK?

What I said was if Clinton had put out that EO - the same argument can't be used to bring it down - ie "intent" expressed in campaign statements or statements she made while in office because she hasn't made any regarding banning Muslims. But Trump has. So if it were a Clinton EO, you'd have to find some sort of other argument to attack it with.

There's no hypocrisy - unless Clinton had been making comments on completely banning Muslims, and she hadn't. So you'd have to find another argument.

If you listen to the audio in the OPs link, Clintons name was never mentioned, just if another candidate had become president and done it, would it be legal. After some dancing the ACLU attorney admitted it would be.

.

Ok that was my assumption then. But the point still stands, without the statements you couldn't apply the same argument.

Which takes us back to the 4 corners doctrine.

.

Not familiar with that...

 

[Aries]

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

coming to SCOTUS this summer?

Omar Jadwat, arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that President Trump’s order could be constitutional if Hillary Clinton had enacted the same order.

ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton | Need To Know Network

it could have been constitutional if trump didn't run around asking to "ban all muslims" his entire campaign.

Only thing I can suggest is hillary is not so stupid and naive to our constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Guns are a constitutionally protected right. Immigrations isn't. Geeze.

Freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Establishment cause ring a bell?

An example : Obama bans all Christians From immigrating and only allows Muslim to come into America because he wants a Muslim country. Constitutional??? Of course not !

Trump didn't exclude all muslims, just ones where there was no adequate central government with sufficient records to properly investigate them.

.

Like Iran?

We don't have diplomatic relations or governmental cooperation in Iran.

.

We have a degree of cooperation, vis a vis nuclear deal. We've also had travel between the two nations for some time, and there is a adequate central government with sufficient records - Iranian nationals have not been among those launching terror attacks on us. There is no "national security" interest in having them on the list.

So you think Iran would have a problem green lighting someone for a visa that would be an agent of theirs? Would that be because they are so honorable and trust worthy?

.

 

[Coyote]

Freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Establishment cause ring a bell?

An example : Obama bans all Christians From immigrating and only allows Muslim to come into America because he wants a Muslim country. Constitutional??? Of course not !

Trump didn't exclude all muslims, just ones where there was no adequate central government with sufficient records to properly investigate them.

.

Like Iran?

We don't have diplomatic relations or governmental cooperation in Iran.

.

We have a degree of cooperation, vis a vis nuclear deal. We've also had travel between the two nations for some time, and there is a adequate central government with sufficient records - Iranian nationals have not been among those launching terror attacks on us. There is no "national security" interest in having them on the list.

So you think Iran would have a problem green lighting someone for a visa that would be an agent of theirs? Would that be because they are so honorable and trust worthy?

.

Nope. But then, I feel the same about Russia and they're not on the list are they?

 

[toobfreak]

Actually Obama's ban had substantial differences, which is why it wasn't challenged.

They being? And when was Obama's ban invoked?

There are considerable differences between the two.

For example, Obama's was very narrow in scope while Trumps was extremely broad. And, ACLU objected to it as well.

H.R. 158 did not actually block travel or immigration by residents or citizens of any particular countries; rather, it terminated travel privileges afforded persons previously covered under the Visa Waiver Program, as described in a letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to members of Congress objecting to the bill:

Just because you don't like Islam doesn't suddenly make it "not a religion" after 1300 years

Did I say I didn't like it, Coyote? It may have a philosophical base and faith within it, but it is founded on Sharia Law and it isn't I which says it is a political system, it is THEY. Read the Koran.

I've read it. And some of the history as well. Sharia is analogous to Jewish law - Gods path on how to live and act. If you are going to claim it's a "political system" then you have to apply the same standards to Judaism.

Codes of law do not make it "not a religion" - in fact, that claim about Islam sprouted spontaneiously post 9/11 - it's kind of ridiculous to claim a religion, that has been around and recognized world wide (and in fact still is) for 1300 years is, now, suddenly in the past few decades "not a religion" because people hate Muslims and that is the essence of the argument. How do you attack a religion? By claiming it's not a religion. Then you start removing protections and rights from it's followers. It's a classic methodology for discrimmination.

That is all fine and good and I will take you at your word on some of the things, but Christians do not conquer you, take your home and make you abide by their strict laws and charge you a tax in their court to live or kill you outright cutting your head off. Islam does. Christians do not immigrate to another country and not want to take up local customs and standards, Islam does.

 

[OKTexas]

Careful, your partisan slip is showing........
Actually the law is the law, interpretation hypocrisy as
what you're promoting here as no " discrimination intent" as implied would ever pass legal muster in a much higher court of law (SCOTUS).

Actually no, not in this case. Read what I said (no one else did).

I'm not saying whether or not the court argument is valid - in fact, I think it's kind of stretched. I'm utterly opposed to the ban, for a variety of reasons, and I have no doubt about what the intent behind it is - but unlike the first EO, the second one is better crafted legally. OK?

What I said was if Clinton had put out that EO - the same argument can't be used to bring it down - ie "intent" expressed in campaign statements or statements she made while in office because she hasn't made any regarding banning Muslims. But Trump has. So if it were a Clinton EO, you'd have to find some sort of other argument to attack it with.

There's no hypocrisy - unless Clinton had been making comments on completely banning Muslims, and she hadn't. So you'd have to find another argument.

If you listen to the audio in the OPs link, Clintons name was never mentioned, just if another candidate had become president and done it, would it be legal. After some dancing the ACLU attorney admitted it would be.

.

Ok that was my assumption then. But the point still stands, without the statements you couldn't apply the same argument.

Which takes us back to the 4 corners doctrine.

.

Not familiar with that...

Four Corners
The document itself; the face of a written instrument.

The term is ordinarily included in the phrase within the four corners of the document, which denotes that in ascertaining thelegal significance and consequences of the document, the parties and the court can only examine its language and allmatters encompassed within it. Extraneous information concerning the document that does not appear in it—within its fourcorners—cannot be evaluated.

Four Corners

Now you are.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

coming to SCOTUS this summer?

Omar Jadwat, arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that President Trump’s order could be constitutional if Hillary Clinton had enacted the same order.

ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton | Need To Know Network

it could have been constitutional if trump didn't run around asking to "ban all muslims" his entire campaign.

Only thing I can suggest is hillary is not so stupid and naive to our constitution.

The flaw in your argument is it didn't apply to "all muslims".

.

 

[Aries]

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

coming to SCOTUS this summer?

Omar Jadwat, arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that President Trump’s order could be constitutional if Hillary Clinton had enacted the same order.

ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton | Need To Know Network

it could have been constitutional if trump didn't run around asking to "ban all muslims" his entire campaign.

Only thing I can suggest is hillary is not so stupid and naive to our constitution.

The flaw in your argument is it didn't apply to "all muslims".

.

but trumps language did. He referred to it repeatedly as a "muslim ban," it shows his intention is to target them by religion. Unconstitutional.

 

[Coyote]

Actually Obama's ban had substantial differences, which is why it wasn't challenged.

They being? And when was Obama's ban invoked?

There are considerable differences between the two.

For example, Obama's was very narrow in scope while Trumps was extremely broad. And, ACLU objected to it as well.

H.R. 158 did not actually block travel or immigration by residents or citizens of any particular countries; rather, it terminated travel privileges afforded persons previously covered under the Visa Waiver Program, as described in a letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to members of Congress objecting to the bill:

Just because you don't like Islam doesn't suddenly make it "not a religion" after 1300 years

Did I say I didn't like it, Coyote? It may have a philosophical base and faith within it, but it is founded on Sharia Law and it isn't I which says it is a political system, it is THEY. Read the Koran.

I've read it. And some of the history as well. Sharia is analogous to Jewish law - Gods path on how to live and act. If you are going to claim it's a "political system" then you have to apply the same standards to Judaism.

Codes of law do not make it "not a religion" - in fact, that claim about Islam sprouted spontaneiously post 9/11 - it's kind of ridiculous to claim a religion, that has been around and recognized world wide (and in fact still is) for 1300 years is, now, suddenly in the past few decades "not a religion" because people hate Muslims and that is the essence of the argument. How do you attack a religion? By claiming it's not a religion. Then you start removing protections and rights from it's followers. It's a classic methodology for discrimmination.

That is all fine and good and I will take you at your word on some of the things, but Christians do not conquer you, take your home and make you abide by their strict laws and charge you a tax in their court to live or kill you outright cutting your head off. Islam does. Christians do not immigrate to another country and not want to take up local customs and standards, Islam does.

For Christians - review your history.
These days - most Muslums do not decapitate you. As far as assimilation - it depends more on their cultural background, and that of the country they immigrate to as to how well they assimilate. Countries like America and Canada for example have a very high degree of assimilation. Broad brushing is seldom accurate and this is a good example of that inaccuracy.

Do Muslim Immigrants Assimilate? - Niskanen Center

Reports of a Culture Clash Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Fear about a culture clash between Islam and the West began well before the current European migrant crisis. The demography may be changing, to be sure, but are newcomers assimilating? For all the stereotypes, assumptions, and misleading (or outright false!) statistics about Muslims in Europe, let’s examine what the research actually shows.


Alan Manning and Sanchari Roy, economists at the London School of Economics, kick-started the literature on cultural assimilation with their 2007 paper testing whether Muslim immigrants in the U.K. assimilated any more slowly than other immigrants. Maybe, they conceded, policy interventions were needed if cultural assimilation of some groups was not fast enough.


They concluded, however, that “we find no evidence for a culture clash in general, and one connected with Muslims in particular.” In other words, Muslim immigrants assimilate no slower than do any other immigrants.


That conclusion was called into question the next year when economics professors Alberto Bisin, Eleanora Patacchini, Thierry Verdier, and Yves Zenou published their paper (ungated version here) “Are Muslim Immigrants Different in Terms of Cultural Integration?” in the Journal of the European Economic Association. The authors criticized Manning and Roy’s metric for integration and proposed their own, along with a model to test for group variation. After conducting their analysis, they concluded that, “Muslims integrate less and more slowly than non-Muslims.”


However, when a team at Stockholm University attempted to replicate Bisin’s paper in 2011, they discovered a coding error in the original analysis. They wrote, “our examination of the data using their variable definitions and the same set-up indicates that their claims about differences between Muslims and non-Muslims[…]does not hold.” Bisin’s team tried to respecify their model (a red flag) to resuscitate their findings but even then, conceded that their revised findings were “less clear-cut.”


Rigorous studies in other countries are unfortunately sparse. A study by demographers Charles Westoff and Tomas Frejka looking at religiousness and other indicators of difference between Muslims and non-Muslims across Europe led the authors to conclude that “differences[…]will continue to diminish” and that the data “shows signs of convergence over time.” The sociologist Sabine Pokorny conducted a representative survey of immigrants in Germany for the CDU-affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation. She paid special attention to Muslim immigrants. Again it was found that assimilation was coming along apace and, interestingly, that Muslims were not more religious than Christians in Germany.


It is important to note that decreased religiosity need not be seen as the indicator of Muslim assimilation. It’s not just that the ideals of religious pluralism (more popular in America than in Europe) are compatible with religiosity. In addition, the evidence does not show that strong religiosity is problematic. Reviewing the literature on religious change in the descendants of Muslim immigrants to the west, social science professors David Voas and Fenella Fleischmann point out that the most recent research suggests that there is probably no association (or maybe even a positive association!) between religiosity and structural integration.


The research that does exist on France paints a bleaker picture than the other research discussed so far. Claire L. Adida, David D. Laitin, and Marie-Anne Valfort looked at the descendants of both Christian and Muslim Senegalese immigrants in a study published in the Journal of Population Economics. They found that “Muslim immigrants show significantly lower assimilation…than do their Christian counterparts. Furthermore[…]assimilation levels do not converge over[…]time.”


But Adida and her coauthors conducted a field experiment to carefully tease out the causes of French non-assimilation. What they discovered is that it arises from actual discrimination by the French, and the perception among Muslims that systemic discrimination exists.


Their subsequent research has found compelling evidence of systematic discrimination against Muslims blocking successful integration. Other research supports the notion that traditional French aversion to minority rights contributes to lower rates of assimilation.​

It's more complicated, then what can be summed up in a bumper sticker, with many variables that affect assimilation and it takes an open mind to dig through it.

 

[OKTexas]

Trump didn't exclude all muslims, just ones where there was no adequate central government with sufficient records to properly investigate them.

.

Like Iran?

We don't have diplomatic relations or governmental cooperation in Iran.

.

We have a degree of cooperation, vis a vis nuclear deal. We've also had travel between the two nations for some time, and there is a adequate central government with sufficient records - Iranian nationals have not been among those launching terror attacks on us. There is no "national security" interest in having them on the list.

So you think Iran would have a problem green lighting someone for a visa that would be an agent of theirs? Would that be because they are so honorable and trust worthy?

.

Nope. But then, I feel the same about Russia and they're not on the list are they?

I tend to agree, but we have a pretty effective intel network in Russia.

.