Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Article 2 gives no power to the president to ban people unilaterally, which you've now repeatedly failed to address.Except it doesn't, as I've already shown. Repeating yourself without responding to the criticism of the specifics is meaningless.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.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.
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.
Except it does.
Where in Article 2 does it give the president this power?It is not unconstitutional you have been shown the law involved.That unconstitutional actions have been done in the past doesn't make them constitutional now.You can sit in your chair an amuse yourself endlessly but the fact is it's been done before so I'd say you're full of shit.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 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.
I do enjoy seeing conservatives suddenly completely uninterested in what the Constitution says all of a sudden. Very amusing.
Trump's Immigration Ban Recalls Past Laws
Speaking with ABC News' David Muir on Wednesday, Trump previewed the ban, saying it concerned "countries that have tremendous terror."
While Trump’s executive action marks a significant shift in decades of U.S. immigration policies, it isn't the first time the U.S. has restricted immigration from specific countries.
Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute pointed to three past instances -- the banning of Chinese immigration in the 1880s, national origin immigration quotas and restrictions in the 1920s, and a brief 1980 halt of new visas for Iranian immigrants.
So in other words, the Congress unconstitutionally abdicated its power. Forgive me if that remains unconvincing.Congress created a Constitutional law delegating the authority to the President as you have been shown repeatedly. The Constitution delegates to the Federal Government all Immigration authority and Congress passed a law giving the President the authority to halt immigration, the law has been linked about 5 times now.Article 2 gives no power to the president to ban people unilaterally, which you've now repeatedly failed to address.Except it doesn't, as I've already shown. Repeating yourself without responding to the criticism of the specifics is meaningless.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.
Except it does.
The unconstitutional law. Yes, I understand now.They don't have to the LAW as has been linked to repeatedly was created and gives the authority to the President.When did they vote on this executive order?The Congress granted the President the power dumb ass. Or are you arguing the Federal Government does not control immigration. Already linked for you.LOLOL I didn't support Obama, genius. As for false narrative, please find the relevant part of the Constitution that says the president can unilaterally ban people from entering the country.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
I think I'm ok, my other personality is a psychologist.Article 2 gives no power to the president to ban people unilaterally, which you've now repeatedly failed to address.Except it doesn't, as I've already shown. Repeating yourself without responding to the criticism of the specifics is meaningless.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.
Except it does.
Asked and answered....repeatedly.
I don't care if you don't like the answer....you seem not firmly grounded in reality.
While it is difficult to analyze via your several repeated postings, it does seem indicative of this symptom:
"Comparative studies have demonstrated higher than normal levels of perseverative responding among schizophrenia patients...."
http://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/...tuBwcgZnBg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
You should have it looked into.
Look you FUCKING MORON, the CONGRESS wrote a BILL and the President signed it years ago, granting the President authority. What part of that process escapes your pea brain?Where in Article 2 does it give the president this power?It is not unconstitutional you have been shown the law involved.That unconstitutional actions have been done in the past doesn't make them constitutional now.You can sit in your chair an amuse yourself endlessly but the fact is it's been done before so I'd say you're full of shit.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.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.
I do enjoy seeing conservatives suddenly completely uninterested in what the Constitution says all of a sudden. Very amusing.
Trump's Immigration Ban Recalls Past Laws
Speaking with ABC News' David Muir on Wednesday, Trump previewed the ban, saying it concerned "countries that have tremendous terror."
While Trump’s executive action marks a significant shift in decades of U.S. immigration policies, it isn't the first time the U.S. has restricted immigration from specific countries.
Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute pointed to three past instances -- the banning of Chinese immigration in the 1880s, national origin immigration quotas and restrictions in the 1920s, and a brief 1980 halt of new visas for Iranian immigrants.
Address literally any of my posts.Refute post #96 or shut the Hell up.
The Congress doesn't have authority to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities to the executive absent an amendment to the Constitution. Unless you can point in the Constitution where they have that authority.Look you FUCKING MORON, the CONGRESS wrote a BILL and the President signed it years ago, granting the President authority. What part of that process escapes your pea brain?Where in Article 2 does it give the president this power?It is not unconstitutional you have been shown the law involved.That unconstitutional actions have been done in the past doesn't make them constitutional now.You can sit in your chair an amuse yourself endlessly but the fact is it's been done before so I'd say you're full of shit.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.
Trump's Immigration Ban Recalls Past Laws
Speaking with ABC News' David Muir on Wednesday, Trump previewed the ban, saying it concerned "countries that have tremendous terror."
While Trump’s executive action marks a significant shift in decades of U.S. immigration policies, it isn't the first time the U.S. has restricted immigration from specific countries.
Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute pointed to three past instances -- the banning of Chinese immigration in the 1880s, national origin immigration quotas and restrictions in the 1920s, and a brief 1980 halt of new visas for Iranian immigrants.
I think I'm ok, my other personality is a psychologist.
RGS generally takes a minute to warm up, and a pointless and embarrassing amount of swearing, but he eventually makes a point. Can't say the same for you.Address literally any of my posts.Refute post #96 or shut the Hell up.
I have. We all have. Get help.
Not my patients, silly.I think I'm ok, my other personality is a psychologist.
Better hope your patients don't read this thread.
Congress does have the authority to determine who and when people will be admitted and to give the power to halt importation to the President when national Security requires it as was done by the law which whether you like it or not is completely legal and Constitutional.The Congress doesn't have authority to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities to the executive absent an amendment to the Constitution. Unless you can point in the Constitution where they have that authority.Look you FUCKING MORON, the CONGRESS wrote a BILL and the President signed it years ago, granting the President authority. What part of that process escapes your pea brain?Where in Article 2 does it give the president this power?It is not unconstitutional you have been shown the law involved.That unconstitutional actions have been done in the past doesn't make them constitutional now.You can sit in your chair an amuse yourself endlessly but the fact is it's been done before so I'd say you're full of shit.
Trump's Immigration Ban Recalls Past Laws
Speaking with ABC News' David Muir on Wednesday, Trump previewed the ban, saying it concerned "countries that have tremendous terror."
While Trump’s executive action marks a significant shift in decades of U.S. immigration policies, it isn't the first time the U.S. has restricted immigration from specific countries.
Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute pointed to three past instances -- the banning of Chinese immigration in the 1880s, national origin immigration quotas and restrictions in the 1920s, and a brief 1980 halt of new visas for Iranian immigrants.
Ok, where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?Congress does have the authority to determine who and when people will be admitted and to give the power to halt importation to the President when national Security requires it as was done by the law which whether you like it or not is completely legal and Constitutional.The Congress doesn't have authority to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities to the executive absent an amendment to the Constitution. Unless you can point in the Constitution where they have that authority.Look you FUCKING MORON, the CONGRESS wrote a BILL and the President signed it years ago, granting the President authority. What part of that process escapes your pea brain?Where in Article 2 does it give the president this power?It is not unconstitutional you have been shown the law involved.That unconstitutional actions have been done in the past doesn't make them constitutional now.
BY the clause that allows Congress to pass all laws in order to properly run the Country, by the fact the President is in charge of the Security of the Nation. Damn are you really this stupid? By the way? Get cracking on challenging the law if you claim it is unconstitutional, that argument has not in fact been made AT ALL by anyone but you and a couple lefties on this board.Ok, where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?Congress does have the authority to determine who and when people will be admitted and to give the power to halt importation to the President when national Security requires it as was done by the law which whether you like it or not is completely legal and Constitutional.The Congress doesn't have authority to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities to the executive absent an amendment to the Constitution. Unless you can point in the Constitution where they have that authority.Look you FUCKING MORON, the CONGRESS wrote a BILL and the President signed it years ago, granting the President authority. What part of that process escapes your pea brain?Where in Article 2 does it give the president this power?It is not unconstitutional you have been shown the law involved.
So are you citing the necessary and proper clause or the general welfare clause like a good little leftist? When Obama was president you seemed to understand that the government only has the power that is explicitly stated in the Constitution. By your rationale here everything Obama did while in office was perfectly constitutional, but we know that's not the case, don't we? Since nowhere does it explicitly say that Congress can abdicate its authority to the president them doing so would be unconstitutional. I know that it's inconvenient for you when it's a Republican doing something unconstitutional that you like, but it's pretty embarrassing to suddenly adopt the left's talking points.BY the clause that allows Congress to pass all laws in order to properly run the Country, by the fact the President is in charge of the Security of the Nation. Damn are you really this stupid? By the way? Get cracking on challenging the law if you claim it is unconstitutional, that argument has not in fact been made AT ALL by anyone but you and a couple lefties on this board.Ok, where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?Congress does have the authority to determine who and when people will be admitted and to give the power to halt importation to the President when national Security requires it as was done by the law which whether you like it or not is completely legal and Constitutional.The Congress doesn't have authority to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities to the executive absent an amendment to the Constitution. Unless you can point in the Constitution where they have that authority.Look you FUCKING MORON, the CONGRESS wrote a BILL and the President signed it years ago, granting the President authority. What part of that process escapes your pea brain?Where in Article 2 does it give the president this power?
They CAN deny who comes here. They are NOT CITIZENS. They are members of a murderous cult.Trump's partial Muslim ban is NOT unconstitutional!! Read below how Trump's Muslim ban IS constitutional! Jimmy Carter did it & even Obama did it for 6 months!!
On Trial: Lawsuits Against Trump On ‘Muslim Immigration Ban’ Will Fail Fast
We have a First Amendment.
The Congress carved out protection only for a limited class of aliens: those who qualify for an immigrant visa. Even here, the only limits are race, sex, nationality, but no limits on the presidential power to exclude based on religion, terror designations, poor vetting documentation or anything that can be called a matter of “procedure.” All refugees can be legally excluded. All Muslims can be legally excluded. All Sharia law supporters can be legally excluded.--http://lawnewz.com/celebrity/on-trial-lawsuits-against-trump-on-muslim-immigration-ban-will-fail-fast/
Congress has no authority to deny or disparage, Religion.
Wrong as usual, Congress and Congress alone can determine HOW WHEN and in what manner they will meet the obligations of the Nation. RETARD.So are you citing the necessary and proper clause or the general welfare clause like a good little leftist? When Obama was president you seemed to understand that the government only has the power that is explicitly stated in the Constitution. By your rationale here everything Obama did while in office was perfectly constitutional, but we know that's not the case, don't we? Since nowhere does it explicitly say that Congress can abdicate its authority to the president them doing so would be unconstitutional. I know that it's inconvenient for you when it's a Republican doing something unconstitutional that you like, but it's pretty embarrassing to suddenly adopt the left's talking points.BY the clause that allows Congress to pass all laws in order to properly run the Country, by the fact the President is in charge of the Security of the Nation. Damn are you really this stupid? By the way? Get cracking on challenging the law if you claim it is unconstitutional, that argument has not in fact been made AT ALL by anyone but you and a couple lefties on this board.Ok, where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?Congress does have the authority to determine who and when people will be admitted and to give the power to halt importation to the President when national Security requires it as was done by the law which whether you like it or not is completely legal and Constitutional.The Congress doesn't have authority to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities to the executive absent an amendment to the Constitution. Unless you can point in the Constitution where they have that authority.Look you FUCKING MORON, the CONGRESS wrote a BILL and the President signed it years ago, granting the President authority. What part of that process escapes your pea brain?
So in other words they can do whatever they want. So long as they're Republicans and the president is Republican. Got it. You're a hack.Wrong as usual, Congress and Congress alone can determine HOW WHEN and in what manner they will meet the obligations of the Nation. RETARD.So are you citing the necessary and proper clause or the general welfare clause like a good little leftist? When Obama was president you seemed to understand that the government only has the power that is explicitly stated in the Constitution. By your rationale here everything Obama did while in office was perfectly constitutional, but we know that's not the case, don't we? Since nowhere does it explicitly say that Congress can abdicate its authority to the president them doing so would be unconstitutional. I know that it's inconvenient for you when it's a Republican doing something unconstitutional that you like, but it's pretty embarrassing to suddenly adopt the left's talking points.BY the clause that allows Congress to pass all laws in order to properly run the Country, by the fact the President is in charge of the Security of the Nation. Damn are you really this stupid? By the way? Get cracking on challenging the law if you claim it is unconstitutional, that argument has not in fact been made AT ALL by anyone but you and a couple lefties on this board.Ok, where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?Congress does have the authority to determine who and when people will be admitted and to give the power to halt importation to the President when national Security requires it as was done by the law which whether you like it or not is completely legal and Constitutional.The Congress doesn't have authority to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities to the executive absent an amendment to the Constitution. Unless you can point in the Constitution where they have that authority.
