Calls To Ban Muslims From Entering the U.S. Are Offensive And Unconstitutional

[Eloy]

The UN Security Council does make law and can decide if a country has violated that law. Remember that international treaties have the force of law.

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

please let us know where we can find all of the international law statutes that every country on earth has agreed to be subject to and comply with.

Please do some research. You are making a fool of yourself.

It would take several volumes to enumerate all the international agreements between countries, companies, and institutions which make up international law. For example, shipping and navigation rights are bound by international law. "Merchant shipping is one of the most heavily regulated industries and was amongst the first to adopt widely implemented international safety standards."
ICS | The Regulation of International Shipping
Then there is international copyright law. "In general, copyright is a form of legal protection given to content creators through the assignment of specific rights to works that qualify for protection."
International Copyright Basics - RightsDirect
A book could be written on international postal regulations alone which are meant in part "to promote and encourage unrestricted and undistorted competition in the provision of international postal services and other international delivery services, except where provision of such services by private companies may be prohibited by law of the United States".
39 U.S. Code § 407 - International postal arrangements
Where do I stop?
I can assure you it is not I who is a fool.

Those are not LAWS. There is no enforcement body or court if they are violated. Do you really believe that the Chinese comply with copyright laws?

You really need to find another thread, you have made a complete fool of yourself on this one.

International treaties are international laws. You seem to believe that a law must be passed by a legislature but that is not so. If international regulations are breached, there are courts to get institutions to comply.

 

[Eloy]

...Says Mike Pence.

We all agree. Muslim bans are offensive. "Muslim Ban" means if you are Muslim, regardless, you are banned. That is a radical departure and differentiation from a temporary ban on countries are banned. Christians from Syria are temporarily banned from entering the US due to the state of the country's strife and violence. Can you stand with Christians from Syria?

The Ban on Muslims is judged to be illegal now so it really doesn't matter at all.

Wait a few minutes and it will be overturned. Than what will you say?

The federal judge in Washington state agrees with me.

His ruling will be overturned. Watch.

The Washington judge's ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Appeal Court.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Guess what nimrod? We do not recognize the ICC! Never have, never will!

You don't have to tell me that the USA does not recognize the International Criminal Court. They dare not.

OK, please explain why you bring them up when you know that we do not recognize the ICC?

Are you normally prone to destroying your own arguments out of some pathetic self-hatred or what?

You continually insult me in your posts. I do not consider it polite to get personal as it only lowers the tone of debate.

The world is bigger than the USA and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an for the prosecution of war crimes. This thread is concerning Trump's illegal executive order and who can tell yet how many of his decisions are already illegal or will be. Of course the USA, like Israel, does not recognize the ICC. It would be clogged-up with cases if it did. I mention the court as an example of how justice is provided internationally. The USA can also veto decisions of the International Court of Justice. How convenient.

I insult you because you continue to trot out nothing but lies. You call it an illegal order. How can something that is codified in US law (signed by Obama BTW) be illegal? Are you that screwed up in the head? You are either incredibly stupid or ignorant to the point of needing a keeper!

You trot of the ICC as justification for some unknown reason and then claim you knew that you were wrong. Who does that? I can tell you who does that! A complete and utter moron!

This is the last insult of yours that I will see. You will not hear from me again.

The IQ of the forum just spiked upward!

 

[Eloy]

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

Guess what nimrod? We do not recognize the ICC! Never have, never will!

You don't have to tell me that the USA does not recognize the International Criminal Court. They dare not.

"Dare not"? Need not.

The Americans were keen to be represented on an international court such as Nürnberg in the last century when they are not in the dock but shy away from courts that would convict them.

so you are a naïve brit. were you marching in the streets last night dressed up as a vagina?

Oh dear. Your are getting close to being added to my 'ignore' list.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We all agree. Muslim bans are offensive. "Muslim Ban" means if you are Muslim, regardless, you are banned. That is a radical departure and differentiation from a temporary ban on countries are banned. Christians from Syria are temporarily banned from entering the US due to the state of the country's strife and violence. Can you stand with Christians from Syria?

The Ban on Muslims is judged to be illegal now so it really doesn't matter at all.

Wait a few minutes and it will be overturned. Than what will you say?

The federal judge in Washington state agrees with me.

His ruling will be overturned. Watch.

The Washington judge's ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Appeal Court.

Woe be unto any judges who allowed a terrorist to slip into this country over the last few days.

Back in the old days, tar and feathering, or running them out of town on a rail would be too good for them.

 

[TooTall]

...Says Mike Pence.

Mulsims shooting and runnkng over people are offensive and much more so.

Has that happened here?

Yes.

 

[Redfish]

We all agree. Muslim bans are offensive. "Muslim Ban" means if you are Muslim, regardless, you are banned. That is a radical departure and differentiation from a temporary ban on countries are banned. Christians from Syria are temporarily banned from entering the US due to the state of the country's strife and violence. Can you stand with Christians from Syria?

The Ban on Muslims is judged to be illegal now so it really doesn't matter at all.

Wait a few minutes and it will be overturned. Than what will you say?

The federal judge in Washington state agrees with me.

His ruling will be overturned. Watch.

The Washington judge's ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Appeal Court.

and when one of those allowed in kills innocent americans---------------------------? Is PC more important to you fools than innocent life?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Ban on Muslims is judged to be illegal now so it really doesn't matter at all.

Wait a few minutes and it will be overturned. Than what will you say?

The federal judge in Washington state agrees with me.

His ruling will be overturned. Watch.

The Washington judge's ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Appeal Court.

Woe be unto any judges who allowed a terrorist to slip into this country over the last few days.

Back in the old days, tar and feathering, or running them out of town on a rail would be too good for them.

Yet, as strange as it is, these judges want terrorists here. Each death is met with Democrat glee.

 

[Redfish]

Guess what nimrod? We do not recognize the ICC! Never have, never will!

You don't have to tell me that the USA does not recognize the International Criminal Court. They dare not.

"Dare not"? Need not.

The Americans were keen to be represented on an international court such as Nürnberg in the last century when they are not in the dock but shy away from courts that would convict them.

so you are a naïve brit. were you marching in the streets last night dressed up as a vagina?

Oh dear. Your are getting close to being added to my 'ignore' list.

if you find the truth offensive, go for it. You will not be missed.

 

[Unkotare]

In order for a body to make law, that body must have judicial and enforcement powers. The UN has neither. There is no such thing as "international law".

International treaties are only binding if both countries have recourse if the other violates the treaty. The Iranians have violated the nuke treaty that Obama made with them, what court do you think we should take them to in order to make them comply? There is no court that would enforce such violations of treaties.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you since you obviously got a terrible education.

The UN does indeed make law and enforces it too. It was the UN which intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims by the Orthodox Serbs.

Violations of international law, such as treaties, can be adjudicated by the UN and the International Criminal Court.
ICC- Welcome to the International Criminal Court

please let us know where we can find all of the international law statutes that every country on earth has agreed to be subject to and comply with.

Please do some research. You are making a fool of yourself.

It would take several volumes to enumerate all the international agreements between countries, companies, and institutions which make up international law. For example, shipping and navigation rights are bound by international law. "Merchant shipping is one of the most heavily regulated industries and was amongst the first to adopt widely implemented international safety standards."
ICS | The Regulation of International Shipping
Then there is international copyright law. "In general, copyright is a form of legal protection given to content creators through the assignment of specific rights to works that qualify for protection."
International Copyright Basics - RightsDirect
A book could be written on international postal regulations alone which are meant in part "to promote and encourage unrestricted and undistorted competition in the provision of international postal services and other international delivery services, except where provision of such services by private companies may be prohibited by law of the United States".
39 U.S. Code § 407 - International postal arrangements
Where do I stop?
I can assure you it is not I who is a fool.

Those are not LAWS. There is no enforcement body or court if they are violated. Do you really believe that the Chinese comply with copyright laws?

You really need to find another thread, you have made a complete fool of yourself on this one.

International treaties are international laws. You seem to believe that a law must be passed by a legislature but that is not so. If international regulations are breached, there are courts to get institutions to comply.

 

[Eloy]

The Ban on Muslims is judged to be illegal now so it really doesn't matter at all.

Wait a few minutes and it will be overturned. Than what will you say?

The federal judge in Washington state agrees with me.

His ruling will be overturned. Watch.

The Washington judge's ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Appeal Court.

and when one of those allowed in kills innocent americans---------------------------? Is PC more important to you fools than innocent life?

The people who were illegally stopped by the Homeland Security had green cards and visa. These documents were not issued by the Washington judge but by U.S. embassies and the immigration authorities. If any are dangerous they should not have received these documents.

 

[Eloy]

You don't have to tell me that the USA does not recognize the International Criminal Court. They dare not.

"Dare not"? Need not.

The Americans were keen to be represented on an international court such as Nürnberg in the last century when they are not in the dock but shy away from courts that would convict them.

so you are a naïve brit. were you marching in the streets last night dressed up as a vagina?

Oh dear. Your are getting close to being added to my 'ignore' list.

if you find the truth offensive, go for it. You will not be missed.

Please be nice.

 

[Unkotare]

"Dare not"? Need not.

The Americans were keen to be represented on an international court such as Nürnberg in the last century when they are not in the dock but shy away from courts that would convict them.

so you are a naïve brit. were you marching in the streets last night dressed up as a vagina?

Oh dear. Your are getting close to being added to my 'ignore' list.

if you find the truth offensive, go for it. You will not be missed.

Please be nice.

Please grow up, and grow skin thicker than rice paper.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Key members of the United Nations were making a profit off of Saddam. They have not enforced one single resolution, when certain nations had their hand in Iraq's pocket. instead the UN chose to pass additional resolutions on top of what they already agreed upon, giving Iraq chance... after chance... after chance... after chance... after chance. The United Nations has no teeth behind any of their proposed "conditions" placed on Saddam, conditions that have proven to carry no more weight than a simple sheet of paper. EIGHT YEARS, we have seen a complete U.S. administration pass through after Iraq's cease fire conditions, and the United Nations were no further along in getting Iraq to comply with the UN than year one. The United Nations is a bureaucracy of red tape with no real enforcement, they are a road block with no proven historical significance in standing up to rogue Nations that don't comply.

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

LMAO!!!! I'm guilty of using words to justify just how uneducated you are on the subject? Did you even bother to take the time to look up the term - "cease fire agreement", or did you just respond with your little tantrum here? For someone who claims to boast so much about their knowledge of "international law" and the United Nations, i find your reply rather humorous.

Scofflaws often laugh at the law.

No ... you just simply don't know what a cease fire agreement means with respect to Iraq. If you want to talk "international law" or United Nations authority, then you need to educate yourself with certain terms and how they apply. You have the right to choose to play ignorant by calling it the war stupid or means to justify what you don't personally agree with, however you are certainly not knowledgeable when it comes to issues concerning the United Nations.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wrong the charter is clear one can invade for almost any reason as long as one has cause. There is NO requirement that the UN sanction it AT ALL.

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

There was also no cases of German or Japanese immigrants coming from an recognized nation we were at war with (labeled as a part of the axis of evil), that were allowed to enter the United States during World War II. Such facts and links that prove otherwise I would so love to see if you can provide. However, I'm sure (in likewise fashion) we would find the usual liberals, who claim to "know" the United States Constitution, try and conclude the argument that such acts were deemed unconstitutional as it unfairly focus on a particular group of people and prohibits a perceived entitled "requirement" to allow them equal entry. There is no clause or amendment regarding immigration, that even states that it's the duty of the United States to allow equal opportunity to all immigrants ... especially ... those hostile threats and regions that are proven to be aggressive against the United States and its citizens. Let's see if these liberals can actually provide such a clearly written article or clause under our Constitution.

Although the United States is planning to attack and pulverize Iran on behalf of the Israelis, it has not yet done so. This means that there are no grounds for discriminating against Iranian Muslims wanting to visit the USA.

How about we stuck to one subject such as your topic of World War II and my points regarding immigration during that war, instead of changing topics when you can't handle the discussion.

Normally belligerent states in a war do not have free movement of people.

Normally an open border immigration with a nation or region that is hostile towards the United States, or share hostile intentions, is treated as a risk to national security. If that was not the case during a time of war, such as World War II for example, then provide some evidence to the contrary with links that supports your position.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Calls To Ban Muslims From Entering the U.S. Are Offensive And Unconstitutional


What the hysterical liberals are hoping you won't notice, is that no one is calling for that.

Calls to enslave black people, put them in chains, and force them to work on farms for no pay and poor subsistence, are offensive and unconstitutional, too... not to mention inhuman.

Nobody's calling for that, either.

But at this rate, it won't be long before the liberal snowflakes are wailing and whining about that, too, as though somebody WAS calling for it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Why is this thread still going? Did a bunch of conservative scumbags not get the memo that this EO is illegal and unconstitutional? I realize you scumbags HATE the constitution and everything America stands for, but could you drooling imbeciles try paying attention to the news once in a while?

It's not unconstitutional as it does not descriminate against a particular religion, it also is within the president's authority under The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Just because a state judge finds the ban "an inconvenience" does not make it unconstitutional. You have to be willing to show clear religious discrimination, which is not proven nor does the ruling provide any clear evidence to deem it as such.

 

[Indeependent]

Wait a few minutes and it will be overturned. Than what will you say?

The federal judge in Washington state agrees with me.

His ruling will be overturned. Watch.

The Washington judge's ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Appeal Court.

and when one of those allowed in kills innocent americans---------------------------? Is PC more important to you fools than innocent life?

The people who were illegally stopped by the Homeland Security had green cards and visa. These documents were not issued by the Washington judge but by U.S. embassies and the immigration authorities. If any are dangerous they should not have received these documents.

Most of them are here for cheap labor replacing citizens; they should be sent home.

 

[Eloy]

The United States did not have a recommendation from the UN Security Council to invade and destroy Iraq. This means that the invasion was illegal.

After The coalition, led by the United States, pushed Iraq out of Kuwait with the complete surrender of the Republican Guard and Saddam, there was a "cease fire agreement" that ended the assault based on a set of conditions that Iraq must later comply with. I would be willing to bet that you don't have the slightest clue as to what the term "cease fire agreement" means.

You are guilty of using words to justify a stupid war looking for WMD that did not exist. Just look at the deaths and instability the Americans caused and feel the shame.

LMAO!!!! I'm guilty of using words to justify just how uneducated you are on the subject? Did you even bother to take the time to look up the term - "cease fire agreement", or did you just respond with your little tantrum here? For someone who claims to boast so much about their knowledge of "international law" and the United Nations, i find your reply rather humorous.

Scofflaws often laugh at the law.

No ... you just simply don't know what a cease fire agreement means with respect to Iraq. If you want to talk "international law" or United Nations authority, then you need to educate yourself with certain terms and how they apply. You have the right to choose to play ignorant by calling it the war stupid or means to justify what you don't personally agree with, however you are certainly not knowledgeable when it comes to issues concerning the United Nations.

Tilly would agree with you on that.

 

[Eloy]

After WWII one of the crimes recognized by the Nürnberg Court was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace".
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

There was also no cases of German or Japanese immigrants coming from an recognized nation we were at war with (labeled as a part of the axis of evil), that were allowed to enter the United States during World War II. Such facts and links that prove otherwise I would so love to see if you can provide. However, I'm sure (in likewise fashion) we would find the usual liberals, who claim to "know" the United States Constitution, try and conclude the argument that such acts were deemed unconstitutional as it unfairly focus on a particular group of people and prohibits a perceived entitled "requirement" to allow them equal entry. There is no clause or amendment regarding immigration, that even states that it's the duty of the United States to allow equal opportunity to all immigrants ... especially ... those hostile threats and regions that are proven to be aggressive against the United States and its citizens. Let's see if these liberals can actually provide such a clearly written article or clause under our Constitution.

Although the United States is planning to attack and pulverize Iran on behalf of the Israelis, it has not yet done so. This means that there are no grounds for discriminating against Iranian Muslims wanting to visit the USA.

How about we stuck to one subject such as your topic of World War II and my points regarding immigration during that war, instead of changing topics when you can't handle the discussion.

Normally belligerent states in a war do not have free movement of people.

Normally an open border immigration with a nation or region that is hostile towards the United States, or share hostile intentions, is treated as a risk to national security. If that was not the case during a time of war, such as World War II for example, then provide some evidence to the contrary with links that supports your position.

I do not know what you mean by a "region that is hostile towards the United States". I do not follow what you are getting at.