So Except For Bill Of Rights, Executive Order Made Sense(?)! (Which Is Why It's There(?)!)

[mascale]

It is widely noted, or not(?): Lawfully, the president may, "by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens" or impose "any restrictions" if he decides their presence in the country would be detrimental to the U.S."

The way any law is set up--referring to what the referenced high school students actually know already--it must also pass the Constitutional Test, which includes the Amendments. Famous Amendments, One through Ten, are some of them. Even Amendments 18 and 21 are in there, too. The Booze: Stays, and as a Constitutional matter(?)!

The fact that the creation and implementation of the Temporary Travel Ban was sloppy, unique, incompetent and careless: Would simply make it an absurdity as is usual. The fact that the lives of U. S. Nationals were also impacted: Then the Presidential authority has been noted to be limited.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Leaves of Peyote Spirit have been noted to be there(?)!)

 

[Trouble13]

No offense but your post makes no sense. I cant tell what your argument is if you have one.

There is nothing in the bill of rights preventing trumps ban.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[mascale]

Anti-American Trouble13 poster clearly claims that Bill of Rights applies to no statutes or executive orders at all in the USA(?).

That is no so, and the "Not So" is widely known to Democrats, Independents, and "Other" people, even worldwide. Anyone further can note the absurdity of the contentions that the Seven listed nations are "Failed States," in theory no longer nations(?). A Ban "In-absentia," with basis in boundaries, possibly obscure: Would be absurd on its face. An order would have to allude to a former status as nations, not one current.

Then consider Iraq. Iraq is successfully throwing most of ISIL out of Mosul, and with U.S. support. Equally with U. S. support, Germany, France, Belgium, possibly Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Portugal: Are apparently unable to get rid of suspect terrorists in their borders. If that makes them, "Failed States," then State Department has some explaining to do. Israel is clearly, equally, a failed state.

Where does the ban apply: Constitutionally vague, arbitrary and capricious?

To the Magnificent Seven, Only?

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes(?) take to streets in protest, some even violent: In USA, Post Trump Inauguration, a failed state?)

 

[Hum Dinger]

Anti-American Trouble13 poster clearly claims that Bill of Rights applies to no statutes or executive orders at all in the USA(?).

That is no so, and the "Not So" is widely known to Democrats, Independents, and "Other" people, even worldwide. Anyone further can note the absurdity of the contentions that the Seven listed nations are "Failed States," in theory no longer nations(?). A Ban "In-absentia," with basis in boundaries, possibly obscure: Would be absurd on its face. An order would have to allude to a former status as nations, not one current.

Then consider Iraq. Iraq is successfully throwing most of ISIL out of Mosul, and with U.S. support. Equally with U. S. support, Germany, France, Belgium, possibly Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Portugal: Are apparently unable to get rid of suspect terrorists in their borders. If that makes them, "Failed States," then State Department has some explaining to do. Israel is clearly, equally, a failed state.

Where does the ban apply: Constitutionally vague, arbitrary and capricious?

To the Magnificent Seven, Only?

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes(?) take to streets in protest, some even violent: In USA, Post Trump Inauguration, a failed state?)

Nice poetry...poor political argument.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is widely noted, or not(?): Lawfully, the president may, "by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens" or impose "any restrictions" if he decides their presence in the country would be detrimental to the U.S."

The way any law is set up--referring to what the referenced high school students actually know already--it must also pass the Constitutional Test, which includes the Amendments. Famous Amendments, One through Ten, are some of them. Even Amendments 18 and 21 are in there, too. The Booze: Stays, and as a Constitutional matter(?)!

The fact that the creation and implementation of the Temporary Travel Ban was sloppy, unique, incompetent and careless: Would simply make it an absurdity as is usual. The fact that the lives of U. S. Nationals were also impacted: Then the Presidential authority has been noted to be limited.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Leaves of Peyote Spirit have been noted to be there(?)!)

Bullshit. At most it delayed the processing of travel by some green card holders. There was no legal basis for the stay and the appellate court was remiss in not correcting this.

 

[mascale]

The Trump pro-terrorist ban is already not in force: The Trump people say due to politics, the rest of the world following along actual law.

"Crow: James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Maybe only UC Berkeley is a failed state(?)! Do people let any of them. . . .even go shopping(?)!)

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Trump pro-terrorist ban is already not in force: The Trump people say due to politics, the rest of the world following along actual law.

"Crow: James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Maybe only UC Berkeley is a failed state(?)! Do people let any of them. . . .even go shopping(?)!)

Only people who don't understand what happened say it is because of law.

 

[mascale]

People have now already been told that America was already Great Again in 2011, especially with ObamaCare getting in place, with no clear plan to replace it ever since.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!)
(Stimulus Accounting now even shown in 2017: In Brand New Cabinet in White House!)