Trump's Muslim ban is NOT unconstitutional!!

[Manonthestreet]

Canada said they would take em all.....

 

[danielpalos]

one nation, regardless of Religion.

Religion????

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,".... until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”

“It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral. “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
Admiral Lyons on Obama’s Strategy: ‘It’s Anti-American ... Pro-Islamic, It’s Pro-Iranian, and Pro-Muslim Brotherhood!’

Opinions don't matter; we have a supreme law of the land. The militia of the United States, knows this.

Wrong again.

The regime of Franklin Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." The Brookshire Times from Brookshire, Texas on March 1, 1935 · Page 2

No acts were ruled unConstitutional simply Because they provided for the general welfare; it was about implementation, not the law.

You really don't know any history, do you?


FDR destroyed the integrity of the Supreme Court......so, who would rule anything the totalitarian did as unconstitutional?????????


"Of particular concern to the New Dealers was a four-judge coterie on the Court, Justices Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Van Devanter, who collectively embraced a settled anti-regulatory ideology hostile to interventionist government. Each of the so-called Four Horsemen was over the age of seventy in 1932.

Owen Roberts, the youngest of the justices," was a swing vote, as Kennedy is today.
FDR’s Court-Packing Plan: A Study in Irony | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History


So....Roosevelt and his aides formulated a plan to add a Justice for every one of a certain age.

In effect, by packing the court, Roosevelt would have altered the three-branches model of the Constitution into a unitary government, a monarchy.


"Many contemporary observers noted the timing of Justice Roberts’s apparent reversal from a swing voter against regulatory legislation to a swing voter in favor of it, a dramatic change described famously as the “switch in time that saved nine.” By all indications, Roberts had been influenced by the court-packing bill." Ibid.

And so, the United States Constitution died a quiet death in its sleep.




How about you gain an education before you post about topics totally alien to you?
M'kay?

yet, some policies were ruled unConstitutional; just not, Because they promoted the general welfare.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religion????

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,".... until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”

“It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral. “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
Admiral Lyons on Obama’s Strategy: ‘It’s Anti-American ... Pro-Islamic, It’s Pro-Iranian, and Pro-Muslim Brotherhood!’

Opinions don't matter; we have a supreme law of the land. The militia of the United States, knows this.

Wrong again.

The regime of Franklin Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." The Brookshire Times from Brookshire, Texas on March 1, 1935 · Page 2

No acts were ruled unConstitutional simply Because they provided for the general welfare; it was about implementation, not the law.

You really don't know any history, do you?


FDR destroyed the integrity of the Supreme Court......so, who would rule anything the totalitarian did as unconstitutional?????????


"Of particular concern to the New Dealers was a four-judge coterie on the Court, Justices Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Van Devanter, who collectively embraced a settled anti-regulatory ideology hostile to interventionist government. Each of the so-called Four Horsemen was over the age of seventy in 1932.

Owen Roberts, the youngest of the justices," was a swing vote, as Kennedy is today.
FDR’s Court-Packing Plan: A Study in Irony | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History


So....Roosevelt and his aides formulated a plan to add a Justice for every one of a certain age.

In effect, by packing the court, Roosevelt would have altered the three-branches model of the Constitution into a unitary government, a monarchy.


"Many contemporary observers noted the timing of Justice Roberts’s apparent reversal from a swing voter against regulatory legislation to a swing voter in favor of it, a dramatic change described famously as the “switch in time that saved nine.” By all indications, Roberts had been influenced by the court-packing bill." Ibid.

And so, the United States Constitution died a quiet death in its sleep.




How about you gain an education before you post about topics totally alien to you?
M'kay?

yet, some policies were ruled unConstitutional; just not, Because they promoted the general welfare.

You're simply going to continue in the face of evidence that you're a dunce?

This is not a topic for you....drop back when it gets around to monster trucks and favorite Crayola.


Now...back into your blanket fort.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

The Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal government has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws.

"The Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.

National defense is the priority job of the national government.
National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government."
A Constitutional Basis for Defense

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

The Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal government has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws.

"The Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.

National defense is the priority job of the national government.
National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution is the relevant portion regarding the powers of the President of the United States, and nowhere does it give the president unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country. So whatever authority is given to the "national" government generally, says nothing about what the president specifically can do.

 

[Brynmr]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

It's not based on nationality or religion, dummy. It's based on national security. And yes, he not only has the authority, he has the duty.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

It's not based on nationality or religion, dummy. It's based on national security. And yes, he not only has the authority, he has the duty.

So he's specifically making the case based on the country people are coming from and their religion, but that has nothing to do with nationality or religion? Find for me in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution where the President is given authority to ban people from entering the country all on his own.

I do enjoy seeing conservatives suddenly completely uninterested in what the Constitution says all of a sudden. Very amusing.

 

[Brynmr]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

The Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal government has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws.

"The Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.

National defense is the priority job of the national government.
National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution is the relevant portion regarding the powers of the President of the United States, and nowhere does it give the president unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country. So whatever authority is given to the "national" government generally, says nothing about what the president specifically can do.

You're too lazy to post the relevant information so I won't bother with it.

 

[Indeependent]

Why is it that only Europeans are willing to fight for their rights?
Everyone one else goes running for the Europeans to take care of them.

 

[Brynmr]

So he's specifically making the case based on the country people are coming from and their religion,

Wrong again. You're just so desperate to force your perverted narrative down people's throats.

The countries are chosen depending on threat.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

The Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal government has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws.

"The Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.

National defense is the priority job of the national government.
National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution is the relevant portion regarding the powers of the President of the United States, and nowhere does it give the president unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country. So whatever authority is given to the "national" government generally, says nothing about what the president specifically can do.

You're too lazy to post the relevant information so I won't bother with it.

I posted a link to the relevant portion, and I can't exactly post information that doesn't exist so what exactly is your complaint?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So he's specifically making the case based on the country people are coming from and their religion,

Wrong again. You're just so desperate to force your perverted narrative down people's throats.

The countries are chosen depending on threat.

So the countries are chosen, which is exactly what I said. Got it.

 

[Brynmr]

I do enjoy seeing conservatives suddenly completely uninterested in what the Constitution says all of a sudden. Very amusing.

We're just not interested in your false narrative. And btw that door swings both ways. LOLOL

 

[danielpalos]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

he has congressional authority.

 

[Brynmr]

So the countries are chosen, which is exactly what I said. Got it.

Yes, based on threat. Damn, you're not very bright, are you.

 

[danielpalos]

Opinions don't matter; we have a supreme law of the land. The militia of the United States, knows this.

Wrong again.

The regime of Franklin Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." The Brookshire Times from Brookshire, Texas on March 1, 1935 · Page 2

No acts were ruled unConstitutional simply Because they provided for the general welfare; it was about implementation, not the law.

You really don't know any history, do you?


FDR destroyed the integrity of the Supreme Court......so, who would rule anything the totalitarian did as unconstitutional?????????


"Of particular concern to the New Dealers was a four-judge coterie on the Court, Justices Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Van Devanter, who collectively embraced a settled anti-regulatory ideology hostile to interventionist government. Each of the so-called Four Horsemen was over the age of seventy in 1932.

Owen Roberts, the youngest of the justices," was a swing vote, as Kennedy is today.
FDR’s Court-Packing Plan: A Study in Irony | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History


So....Roosevelt and his aides formulated a plan to add a Justice for every one of a certain age.

In effect, by packing the court, Roosevelt would have altered the three-branches model of the Constitution into a unitary government, a monarchy.


"Many contemporary observers noted the timing of Justice Roberts’s apparent reversal from a swing voter against regulatory legislation to a swing voter in favor of it, a dramatic change described famously as the “switch in time that saved nine.” By all indications, Roberts had been influenced by the court-packing bill." Ibid.

And so, the United States Constitution died a quiet death in its sleep.




How about you gain an education before you post about topics totally alien to you?
M'kay?

yet, some policies were ruled unConstitutional; just not, Because they promoted the general welfare.

You're simply going to continue in the face of evidence that you're a dunce?

This is not a topic for you....drop back when it gets around to monster trucks and favorite Crayola.


Now...back into your blanket fort.

i can't pay attention to you in public, unless all of the other ones, are doing me in private.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I look in vain in the Constitution for where the president has unilateral authority to ban people from entering the country based on nationality and/or religion.

It's not based on nationality or religion, dummy. It's based on national security. And yes, he not only has the authority, he has the duty.

So he's specifically making the case based on the country people are coming from and their religion, but that has nothing to do with nationality or religion? Find for me in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution where the President is given authority to ban people from entering the country all on his own.

I do enjoy seeing conservatives suddenly completely uninterested in what the Constitution says all of a sudden. Very amusing.

You may tap dance around it all you like....post #65 applies.

 

[Brynmr]

I posted a link to the relevant portion, and I can't exactly post information that doesn't exist so what exactly is your complaint?

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong again.

The regime of Franklin Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." The Brookshire Times from Brookshire, Texas on March 1, 1935 · Page 2

No acts were ruled unConstitutional simply Because they provided for the general welfare; it was about implementation, not the law.

You really don't know any history, do you?


FDR destroyed the integrity of the Supreme Court......so, who would rule anything the totalitarian did as unconstitutional?????????


"Of particular concern to the New Dealers was a four-judge coterie on the Court, Justices Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Van Devanter, who collectively embraced a settled anti-regulatory ideology hostile to interventionist government. Each of the so-called Four Horsemen was over the age of seventy in 1932.

Owen Roberts, the youngest of the justices," was a swing vote, as Kennedy is today.
FDR’s Court-Packing Plan: A Study in Irony | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History


So....Roosevelt and his aides formulated a plan to add a Justice for every one of a certain age.

In effect, by packing the court, Roosevelt would have altered the three-branches model of the Constitution into a unitary government, a monarchy.


"Many contemporary observers noted the timing of Justice Roberts’s apparent reversal from a swing voter against regulatory legislation to a swing voter in favor of it, a dramatic change described famously as the “switch in time that saved nine.” By all indications, Roberts had been influenced by the court-packing bill." Ibid.

And so, the United States Constitution died a quiet death in its sleep.




How about you gain an education before you post about topics totally alien to you?
M'kay?

yet, some policies were ruled unConstitutional; just not, Because they promoted the general welfare.

You're simply going to continue in the face of evidence that you're a dunce?

This is not a topic for you....drop back when it gets around to monster trucks and favorite Crayola.


Now...back into your blanket fort.

i can't pay attention to you in public, unless all of the other ones, are doing me in private.

You are a disgusting little twerp.
I know you must get tired of everyone telling you that.....

Be gone.