Trump's Muslim ban is NOT unconstitutional!!

[Brynmr]

I think I'm ok, my other personality is a psychologist.

Better hope your patients don't read this thread.

Not my patients, silly.

Ok, you're an out-patient. I get it now.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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 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.

That unconstitutional actions have been done in the past doesn't make them constitutional now.

It is not unconstitutional you have been shown the law involved.

It does not have to be unconstitutional for it to be shot down.

There does not seem to be any shortage of arm chair lawyers here and quite frankly, on the topic of Trumps immigration order, I don't really know who's right ( But I do hope that it will be found to be illegal) So, I'm not going to offer and opinion of my own. I will, however post some opinions of people who I have reason to believe that they actually know what they're talking about:

Why More Lawsuits Against Trump's Immigration Order Could Succeed As In Brooklyn Federal Court

The most dramatic arguments may be constitutional. The temporary Brooklyn federal court ruling cited two constitutional grounds, due process and equal protection

Yet, the decisive legal argument in cases like these often turns out to be statutory. In these cases, the victory will perhaps turn on the strong anti-discrimination purpose of Congress’s immigration laws.
Today’s immigration laws derive from the landmark 1965 immigration code that laid to rest the barriers on national origins that had bedeviled the country’s immigration policy from 1924. For fifty years since 1965, no President has challenged the iron rule that the considerations for letting in immigrants have had to focus on issues like family reunification, skills, and so forth – and not revert to the national origins grounds of 1924-1965. The courts may well teach Trump that to erect the first ever wall on discriminatory grounds under the 1965 structure, he has to first enact a change in the statutes by going to Congress.

Trump points to a 1952 law that allows the president to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.

However, by 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, as part of the general reform program of the “Great Society,” had supplanted the earlier structure. The cornerstone of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act became 8 U.S.C. 1152. This provides that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” This is comprehensive, barring “discrimination” precisely on the grounds in Trump’s order – “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” Trump has singled out seven Muslim-majority nations, from well-known Iran, Syria and Libya, to Somalia and Sudan, and to the one country that so many American troops died (often alongside native supporters) to hold together, Iraq.

More Later

 

[Alex.]

"Did President Barack Obama also ban refugees from Iraq?

Obama’s administration did stop processing all applications for Iraqi refugees for a six-month time period. (Jimmy Carter and Chester Arthur were also among presidents to restrict immigration by nation state).

A 2013 ABC News article reported, “The State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”

Trump’s executive order stops all Iraqi citizens from temporarily entering the U.S. “on any visa category,” affecting those trying to visit family or come here for work, in addition to live. It also affects six other countries."

Did President Obama ‘Ban’ Iraqi Refugees?


Either the judge is partisan or Obama and Jimmy Carter and Chester Arthur got passes when they did it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"Did President Barack Obama also ban refugees from Iraq?

Obama’s administration did stop processing all applications for Iraqi refugees for a six-month time period. (Jimmy Carter and Chester Arthur were also among presidents to restrict immigration by nation state).

A 2013 ABC News article reported, “The State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”

Trump’s executive order stops all Iraqi citizens from temporarily entering the U.S. “on any visa category,” affecting those trying to visit family or come here for work, in addition to live. It also affects six other countries."

Did President Obama ‘Ban’ Iraqi Refugees?


Either the judge is partisan or Obama and Jimmy Carter and Chester Arthur got passes when they did it.

Not he same thing:

"It is telling that Trump White House used Obama’s name more times than the phrase Muslim ban in their statement. Make no mistake about it; Trump is trying to use Obama as a human shield to deflect the protests and criticism that are coming at him. The difference between Obama’s action and Trump’s is simple.

Obama banned Iraqi refugee applications for six months. Trump’s executive order banned all types of visa applications from seven different countries. The Obama administration did their ban after it was found that al-Qaeda terrorists were trying to use the Iraqi refugee program to infiltrate the United States. " Protests Are Winning As Desperate Trump Issues Statement Blaming Obama For His Muslim Ban

 

[Conservative65]

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 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.

That unconstitutional actions have been done in the past doesn't make them constitutional now.

It is not unconstitutional you have been shown the law involved.

It does not have to be unconstitutional for it to be shot down.

There does not seem to be any shortage of arm chair lawyers here and quite frankly, on the topic of Trumps immigration order, I don't really know who's right ( But I do hope that it will be found to be illegal) So, I'm not going to offer and opinion of my own. I will, however post some opinions of people who I have reason to believe that they actually know what they're talking about:

Why More Lawsuits Against Trump's Immigration Order Could Succeed As In Brooklyn Federal Court

The most dramatic arguments may be constitutional. The temporary Brooklyn federal court ruling cited two constitutional grounds, due process and equal protection

Yet, the decisive legal argument in cases like these often turns out to be statutory. In these cases, the victory will perhaps turn on the strong anti-discrimination purpose of Congress’s immigration laws.
Today’s immigration laws derive from the landmark 1965 immigration code that laid to rest the barriers on national origins that had bedeviled the country’s immigration policy from 1924. For fifty years since 1965, no President has challenged the iron rule that the considerations for letting in immigrants have had to focus on issues like family reunification, skills, and so forth – and not revert to the national origins grounds of 1924-1965. The courts may well teach Trump that to erect the first ever wall on discriminatory grounds under the 1965 structure, he has to first enact a change in the statutes by going to Congress.

Trump points to a 1952 law that allows the president to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.

However, by 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, as part of the general reform program of the “Great Society,” had supplanted the earlier structure. The cornerstone of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act became 8 U.S.C. 1152. This provides that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” This is comprehensive, barring “discrimination” precisely on the grounds in Trump’s order – “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” Trump has singled out seven Muslim-majority nations, from well-known Iran, Syria and Libya, to Somalia and Sudan, and to the one country that so many American troops died (often alongside native supporters) to hold together, Iraq.

More Later

It does have to be unconstitutional for it to be called unconstitutional.

More later.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Ok, where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?

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.

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.

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 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 retard the Congress can and does create laws delegating authority all the time. Or perhaps you can explain how 535 politicians that spend all their time in DC can run the Government in 50 States and the territories? That is what laws are for as well ass commissions and boards and such. Congress knows they can not reasonably act in a timely manner in regards National security when it takes months to make decisions and requires two different bodies to agree. So they delegated the National security aspect to the Duly elected President.

 

[Alex.]

"Did President Barack Obama also ban refugees from Iraq?

Obama’s administration did stop processing all applications for Iraqi refugees for a six-month time period. (Jimmy Carter and Chester Arthur were also among presidents to restrict immigration by nation state).

A 2013 ABC News article reported, “The State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”

Trump’s executive order stops all Iraqi citizens from temporarily entering the U.S. “on any visa category,” affecting those trying to visit family or come here for work, in addition to live. It also affects six other countries."

Did President Obama ‘Ban’ Iraqi Refugees?


Either the judge is partisan or Obama and Jimmy Carter and Chester Arthur got passes when they did it.

Not he same thing:

"It is telling that Trump White House used Obama’s name more times than the phrase Muslim ban in their statement. Make no mistake about it; Trump is trying to use Obama as a human shield to deflect the protests and criticism that are coming at him. The difference between Obama’s action and Trump’s is simple.

Obama banned Iraqi refugee applications for six months. Trump’s executive order banned all types of visa applications from seven different countries. The Obama administration did their ban after it was found that al-Qaeda terrorists were trying to use the Iraqi refugee program to infiltrate the United States. " Protests Are Winning As Desperate Trump Issues Statement Blaming Obama For His Muslim Ban

I am very well aware of that......the fact that Obama issued a ban at all is note worthy.

As a nation we will have to traverse some pretty turbulent territory.

Banning green card holders is beyond the pale....I would think Trump has to have some very damning facts on hos side, however we will have to wait for his day in court.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ok, where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?

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.

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.

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 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 retard the Congress can and does create laws delegating authority all the time. Or perhaps you can explain how 535 politicians that spend all their time in DC can run the Government in 50 States and the territories? That is what laws are for as well ass commissions and boards and such. Congress knows they can not reasonably act in a timely manner in regards National security when it takes months to make decisions and requires two different bodies to agree. So they delegated the National security aspect to the Duly elected President.

Yeah, I get it. The Constitution only applies to Democrats.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

coming from chics like you, it doesn't seem to bother me at all. i guess all of the other ones are still not doing me.

 

[danielpalos]

Here's the thing with the cult of the Left. If they didn't change the narrative, re-define terms, invent motive and instead were forced to address facts - they couldn't possibly defend their position.

what a coincidence, the left thinks the same of the right. right wing fantasy, is all Y'all really have.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Never said his rationale wasn't that they were a threat. The idea that he's not basing it on nationality or religion, however, is obviously ridiculous based on the fact that he's completely open about it.

Your position is ridiculous. If it was based on religion then no Moslem would be allowed in. If the Swedes were blowing up Boston with pressure cookers, we'd probably see a ban on immigration from Sweden.

Just lousy diplomacy skills from our politicians who have recourse to the Peoples' exorbitantly expensive superpower?

 

[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.

When did they vote on it, and where does the Constitution give them authority?

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

and,

from Article 1, Section 9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

 

[danielpalos]

U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Our Congress is Only delegated the social Power to establish an Uniform rule on immigration or importation of Persons.

 

[danielpalos]

Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011, Liberals SAID NOTHING!

They found Iraqis terrorist and one country for 6 months. Get a grip, why is not SA on the list or Qatar, two very well known terrorist countries, or the UAE?? Turkey?

So you're using the "it was different" excuse for Obama? Why didn't you say so.

None of the states he has banned has killed any US citizen, on US soil. Also Syria and Iraq never invited Americans with guns to come in and do a coup. Did they? Also what we did to N. Korea was beyond disgrace. We think we are so high and mighty, if it was not for our coups , these people would not want to come here.

is a "war on terror" even Constitutional. Our War on Iraq ended already.

It's as Constitutional as the war on poverty.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution; providing for the general warfare is not. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011, Liberals SAID NOTHING!

They found Iraqis terrorist and one country for 6 months. Get a grip, why is not SA on the list or Qatar, two very well known terrorist countries, or the UAE?? Turkey?

So you're using the "it was different" excuse for Obama? Why didn't you say so.

None of the states he has banned has killed any US citizen, on US soil. Also Syria and Iraq never invited Americans with guns to come in and do a coup. Did they? Also what we did to N. Korea was beyond disgrace. We think we are so high and mighty, if it was not for our coups , these people would not want to come here.

is a "war on terror" even Constitutional. Our War on Iraq ended already.

What part of national security and terrorists attacks within the US is still allowing your brain to support terrorists?

another "made up term"? we have a Second Amendment. Any security problem in our free Sates already has a ready made solution; we just need leadership. Should we ask the State of Kentucky, to loan us some Kentucky colonels?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Moslem ban, you twit.

why do they call it that? what kind ban is it?

No one calls it that but Liberals who are trying to control the narrative - aka LYING. It's a temporary ban on people coming from countries that pose a threat to our security.

no crimes are committed by Persons from other countries?

 

[danielpalos]

did you miss the article about how terrorism is relative depending on the amount of crony capitalism involved?

This guy stole your hat.

View attachment 109377

just right wing fantasy; with an "enemy of the State" "around every corner".

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

First of all, there is not a Muslim ban. Second, I agree that one would not be unconstitutional, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[Bush92]

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

First of all, there is not a Muslim ban. Second, I agree that one would not be unconstitutional, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

He did because we are at war with terrorists and he had to.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

First of all, there is not a Muslim ban. Second, I agree that one would not be unconstitutional, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

He did because we are at war with terrorists and he had to.

We are a terrorist target because of our foreign-policy