What is unconstitutional about what Trump proposes?

[imawhosure]

See how the far left drones can not handle being mocked!

So you support FDR as a hero right? because he rounded all those Japanese Americans up..

You know the same far left logic being applied to trump right now, but is ok as long as they have the appropriate letter behind their name..

Silly far left drone!

I see your needle continues to be stuck in the same worn out groove.

This from the irony impaired far left drones.

Better look at your own before you look outward!

Uh, yeah. Do you have the ability to actually create a point based off of the post you are replying to? I can't help but think you have 4 or 5 responses written down and you just pick one based on where the drool splatter lands.

Can you far left drones explain how it is unconstitutional?

or do you insist on running your far left narratives to protect your hero's FDR and Carter?

If you don't allow American citizens back into the country based on their religion then it's unconstitutional. The point has been made several times, you could have directly replied to one of those posts with your thoughts.

And I haven't seen anyone protect FDR or Carter on their actions but somehow you keep imagining it.

Another BULLSHIT post. Show us where Trump said ANYTHING about Americans. Propagandist, period.

 

[Contumacious]

Emphasis on what he proposes...not what a bunch of shriek ears say he proposes.


Trump's ban on Muslim entry to the U.S. would be unconstitutional, experts say: Donald Trump in the news

Did you not read the article you posted?


"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

CONCUR.

IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE STATES RETAINED THE RIGHT TO CONTROL INTRASTATE IMMIGRATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE X AMENDMENT.


.

 

[toxicmedia]

Truth hurts Mr Fraidy Cat

Muslims are "everyone".... Moron.

Right, and Muslim extremists have you carrying their water by fulfilling their goals. They want you to create a Christian VS Muslim war, and they want you t take out their sh!t on Muslims who don't want that war. They want you to be scared of them. You are all of those.

You're helping the terrorists

If Muslims are discreet and sensible enough to condemn radical Islamic extremism ( so you Libtards believe) then they are smart enough to determine that Trumps temp ban is the prudent thing fo do. Sorry to stump you with logic.

I'm not a liberal.

You know nothing about Muslims in the countries where they are a problem, and if you did, you'd understand why they shouldn't be asked to endanger their families to protect American interests.

Trump's policies sound good to reactionary and completely removed, mullet wearing, knuckle dragging malcontents who believe the man that's elected will change their lives

Unlike the "Hope and Change" voters?

Whatthefuckever.

Trump has his own version of hope and change.

It's called "do it or your fired" and Trump has no counter for Democrats who are going to hang him up whenever they can, just like the Republican congress now is doing

 

[deltex1]

Emphasis on what he proposes...not what a bunch of shriek ears say he proposes.


Trump's ban on Muslim entry to the U.S. would be unconstitutional, experts say: Donald Trump in the news

Did you not read the article you posted?


"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Religious test my ass. Larry is a friggen dope.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If you know a group of people from a certain region are at war with you, why would you start importing them?

That's fucking retarded.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Muslims are "everyone".... Moron.

Right, and Muslim extremists have you carrying their water by fulfilling their goals. They want you to create a Christian VS Muslim war, and they want you t take out their sh!t on Muslims who don't want that war. They want you to be scared of them. You are all of those.

You're helping the terrorists

If Muslims are discreet and sensible enough to condemn radical Islamic extremism ( so you Libtards believe) then they are smart enough to determine that Trumps temp ban is the prudent thing fo do. Sorry to stump you with logic.

I'm not a liberal.

You know nothing about Muslims in the countries where they are a problem, and if you did, you'd understand why they shouldn't be asked to endanger their families to protect American interests.

Trump's policies sound good to reactionary and completely removed, mullet wearing, knuckle dragging malcontents who believe the man that's elected will change their lives

Unlike the "Hope and Change" voters?

Whatthefuckever.

Trump has his own version of hope and change.

It's called "do it or your fired" and Trump has no counter for Democrats who are going to hang him up whenever they can, just like the Republican congress now is doing

Nah.. his message is resonating for a reason. And no, it isn't because everyone that disagrees with you is a "knuckle-dragger". Some people are smart enough to realize that when you're told by every expert there is no way to figure out the good from the bad and that ISIS is infiltrating the refugee population, that maybe it is time to put on the brakes until you get it sorted out.

Seems like the prudent thing to do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

(Peeks head through door)

Excuse me. Wrong thread.

 

[couch protester]

[/QUOTE]Trump has his own version of hope and change.

It's called "do it or your fired" and Trump has no counter for Democrats who are going to hang him up whenever they can, just like the Republican congress now is doing[/QUOTE]


That shit don't fly! I'm not drinking that kool-aide. Republicans like Trump are winning because they shift far right to fix the real problems which you liberals go soft on the real issues. The same as when Ronald Reagan was far right conservative and got the greatest voter turn out from liberals that abandoned Carter. So, you can keep that socialists bluff theory about fitting in the middle. Its not about compromising to please the other side, its about standing on your principles and sticking to the real issues. That's why Romney and McCain lost because they were trying to please everybody, it's not a popularity contest, just ask Al Gore, Mr. Popular vote himself! He Lost to a far right!

 

[Papageorgio]

Another example of conservative love of the constitution .

Look who is talking a guy that wants to deny constitutional rights to those on a no fly list. Sorry but you don't give a rats ass about the Constitution.

 

[toxicmedia]

Right, and Muslim extremists have you carrying their water by fulfilling their goals. They want you to create a Christian VS Muslim war, and they want you t take out their sh!t on Muslims who don't want that war. They want you to be scared of them. You are all of those.

You're helping the terrorists

If Muslims are discreet and sensible enough to condemn radical Islamic extremism ( so you Libtards believe) then they are smart enough to determine that Trumps temp ban is the prudent thing fo do. Sorry to stump you with logic.

I'm not a liberal.

You know nothing about Muslims in the countries where they are a problem, and if you did, you'd understand why they shouldn't be asked to endanger their families to protect American interests.

Trump's policies sound good to reactionary and completely removed, mullet wearing, knuckle dragging malcontents who believe the man that's elected will change their lives

Unlike the "Hope and Change" voters?

Whatthefuckever.

Trump has his own version of hope and change.

It's called "do it or your fired" and Trump has no counter for Democrats who are going to hang him up whenever they can, just like the Republican congress now is doing

Nah.. his message is resonating for a reason. And no, it isn't because everyone that disagrees with you is a "knuckle-dragger". Some people are smart enough to realize that when you're told by every expert there is no way to figure out the good from the bad and that ISIS is infiltrating the refugee population, that maybe it is time to put on the brakes until you get it sorted out.

Seems like the prudent thing to do.

It's only resonating amongst Fox News viewers!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Another example of conservative love of the constitution .

Look who is talking a guy that wants to deny constitutional rights to those on a no fly list. Sorry but you don't give a rats ass about the Constitution.

Oh, that's different. Not to mention you can't grant a constitutional right to immigrate to a foreigner. How stupid are these people?

 

[toxicmedia]

Trump has his own version of hope and change.

It's called "do it or your fired" and Trump has no counter for Democrats who are going to hang him up whenever they can, just like the Republican congress now is doing[/QUOTE]


That shit don't fly! I'm not drinking that kool-aide. Republicans like Trump are winning because they shift far right to fix the real problems which you liberals go soft on the real issues. The same as when Ronald Reagan was far right conservative and got the greatest voter turn out from liberals that abandoned Carter. So, you can keep that socialists bluff theory about fitting in the middle. Its not about compromising to please the other side, its about standing on your principles and sticking to the real issues. That's why Romney and McCain lost because they were trying to please everybody, it's not a popularity contest, just ask Al Gore, Mr. Popular vote himself! He Lost to a far right![/QUOTE]George Bush? a far righty?

Really?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If Muslims are discreet and sensible enough to condemn radical Islamic extremism ( so you Libtards believe) then they are smart enough to determine that Trumps temp ban is the prudent thing fo do. Sorry to stump you with logic.

I'm not a liberal.

You know nothing about Muslims in the countries where they are a problem, and if you did, you'd understand why they shouldn't be asked to endanger their families to protect American interests.

Trump's policies sound good to reactionary and completely removed, mullet wearing, knuckle dragging malcontents who believe the man that's elected will change their lives

Unlike the "Hope and Change" voters?

Whatthefuckever.

Trump has his own version of hope and change.

It's called "do it or your fired" and Trump has no counter for Democrats who are going to hang him up whenever they can, just like the Republican congress now is doing

Nah.. his message is resonating for a reason. And no, it isn't because everyone that disagrees with you is a "knuckle-dragger". Some people are smart enough to realize that when you're told by every expert there is no way to figure out the good from the bad and that ISIS is infiltrating the refugee population, that maybe it is time to put on the brakes until you get it sorted out.

Seems like the prudent thing to do.

It's only resonating amongst Fox News viewers!

Yeah, so, you've got nothing but a snappy retort regarding Fox news... lemme guess, you're a CNN guy...

 

[toxicmedia]

I'm not a liberal.

You know nothing about Muslims in the countries where they are a problem, and if you did, you'd understand why they shouldn't be asked to endanger their families to protect American interests.

Trump's policies sound good to reactionary and completely removed, mullet wearing, knuckle dragging malcontents who believe the man that's elected will change their lives

Unlike the "Hope and Change" voters?

Whatthefuckever.

Trump has his own version of hope and change.

It's called "do it or your fired" and Trump has no counter for Democrats who are going to hang him up whenever they can, just like the Republican congress now is doing

Nah.. his message is resonating for a reason. And no, it isn't because everyone that disagrees with you is a "knuckle-dragger". Some people are smart enough to realize that when you're told by every expert there is no way to figure out the good from the bad and that ISIS is infiltrating the refugee population, that maybe it is time to put on the brakes until you get it sorted out.

Seems like the prudent thing to do.

It's only resonating amongst Fox News viewers!

Yeah, so, you've got nothing but a snappy retort regarding Fox news... lemme guess, you're a CNN guy...

Good Christ!, if you rely on MSNBC, CNN, or Fox for your information, you'll have a head full of what the election strategists want you to think

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Correct.

With regard to his unwarranted hostility toward Muslims, what Trump advocates would violate the First Amendment.

In addition to First Amendment violations, such a 'plan' would also violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, particularly the 5th Amendment's Liberty Clause and Due Process Clause.

The Constitution clearly prohibits seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law predicated solely on who they are.

 

[Syriusly]

Was it unconstitutional when President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the USA during the hostage crisis?

No.

Banning citizens of a country from entering- whether its from Iran or Cuba or North Korea is perfectly Constitutional

Banning persons based solely upon their religion is not.

Now- can you tell the difference between an Iranian and a Muslim?

You still are not grasping who Carter banned....hint: religion played a part...so did medical necessity

Feel free to fill me in.

I can see that there is embargo on issuing visa's to Iranians but nothing about religion.

It is the same, the majority of Iranians were Muslim. Call it what it is. If it was okay then, why is it not okay now? At least be consistent.

Well I am calling it what it is- if the ban was on all Iranians- it would have banned both Muslim and Christian Iranians- which is perfectly constitutional.

If our good Conservatives want ensure that no Iraqi Christians can escape Muslim persecution in Iraq, then just pass a ban on any entry by Iraqi's.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Emphasis on what he proposes...not what a bunch of shriek ears say he proposes.


Trump's ban on Muslim entry to the U.S. would be unconstitutional, experts say: Donald Trump in the news

He implied he would not allow American citizens who happen to be Muslim reentry into the country

That part would be unconstitutional

Stopping any Muslim that is not an American citizen would not be unconstitutional since our constitutional protections do not extend to them

And again, I call EXTREME BULLSHIT! Show us where. You are making it out of thin air. Propagandist extraordinaire!

He did imply that

Donald Trump calls for ‘total and complete shutdown’ of Muslims entering U.S.

But when asked by The Hill whether Trump’s theoretical ban “would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad,” spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied, “Mr. Trump says, ‘Everyone.’”


So tell me where is the bullshit?

 

[Papageorgio]

Was it unconstitutional when President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the USA during the hostage crisis?

No.

Banning citizens of a country from entering- whether its from Iran or Cuba or North Korea is perfectly Constitutional

Banning persons based solely upon their religion is not.

Now- can you tell the difference between an Iranian and a Muslim?

You still are not grasping who Carter banned....hint: religion played a part...so did medical necessity

Feel free to fill me in.

I can see that there is embargo on issuing visa's to Iranians but nothing about religion.

It is the same, the majority of Iranians were Muslim. Call it what it is. If it was okay then, why is it not okay now? At least be consistent.

Well I am calling it what it is- if the ban was on all Iranians- it would have banned both Muslim and Christian Iranians- which is perfectly constitutional.

If our good Conservatives want ensure that no Iraqi Christians can escape Muslim persecution in Iraq, then just pass a ban on any entry by Iraqi's.

98% of Iranians are Muslim, so it was a ban on Muslims. It is what it was.

Again, at least be honest and quit making excuses. Was Clinton wrong in banning Iranians that were 98% Muslim? I am asking for honesty, no word twisting.

 

[toxicmedia]

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Correct.

With regard to his unwarranted hostility toward Muslims, what Trump advocates would violate the First Amendment.

In addition to First Amendment violations, such a 'plan' would also violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, particularly the 5th Amendment's Liberty Clause and Due Process Clause.

The Constitution clearly prohibits seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law predicated solely on who they are.

Trump's success with righties shows that the concept of leadership does not involve giving Americans what they want, rather it involves seeing that government gives the people what they need.

Trump's platform is simply a sales pitch, not a platform that could be shoe-horned into policy

 

[Vigilante]

• Top Scholars Say Trump Muslim Immigrant Ban May Be Constitutional......
  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/08/top-scholars-say-trumps-muslim-immigrant-ban-could-be ^ | Dec. 8, 2015 | Steven Nelson
  Almost every public figure appraising Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration and travel to the U.S. has reacted with horror, but the ban would not necessarily be unconstitutional, experts say. Recent U.S. immigration history, in fact, is full of examples of discrimination against minority groups. Throughout the Cold War, non-citizen socialists were deported, and gays could be booted as "sexual deviants" until 1990. An entry ban on HIV-positive people wasn't fully repealed until 2010. Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman, co-director of the school s human rights program, says the idea is “discriminatory in a...