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.
Checks and balances means that if one branch acts wrongly, as it is alleged with this EO, it can be stopped and analyzed and a judgment made. You will need to read what the judge says.Only SCOTUS has 'original jurisdication' on matters constitutional. Read Article III. SCOTUS can dump the president's actions if it opines he acted unconstitutionally.
Aye-- but that still doesn't answer the question. Under the Constitution, all three have powers and authority to act WITHOUT the approval of another. It's what checks and balances are all about. What does the court know about national security? What is its authority over that of the president? The other guy here cited part of the ruling. The judge said it was wrong to use 911 as an argument. Ok. And...? What does that have to do with whether Trump has the authority to make that decision? Why does the judge's opinion of the 911 justification give him authority to overrule the president?
I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.
And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.
Sorry, but being partisan jackwads like you doesn't prove you or they are correct. It just proves that you're all partisan jackwads, and we already knew that.
Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.
Here you go....
Clear Violation
5.5k
1.5k
191
All the many ways Trump’s Muslim ban goes against the Constitution.
1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.
2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.
3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*
4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.
They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....and the President has vast powers over immigration policy....as obama showed when he banned Iraqis for 6 months.....and created the list of 7 countries with terrorism problems....Actually stupid ass I'm not surprised that you continue to make an ass of yourself...They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....
Here, cocksuck these facts:
Non-Citizens and the Constitution
As immigration attorneys, we are careful to explain to our clients their rights and obligations under U.S. immigration law. We tell our non-citizen clients all the time that only U.S citizens are guaranteed entry into the U.S. However, we also stress that even non-citizens have rights under the Constitution. The Executive Order, whether on purpose or not, severely limits, in our opinion, Constitutional protections for non-citizens.
Briefly, even non-citizens have the following guarantees under the U.S Constitution:
Unless the Constitution expressly sets apart its protections to U.S. citizens, it protects non-citizens too.
- Equal protection of the laws
- Political freedoms of speech and association,
- Due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake.
To be sure, there are important distinctions. For example, green card holders cannot vote like citizens despite being able to live and work freely in the U.S.
Nevertheless, when the Constitution says “all persons” or “all people,” the Supreme Court has held that it means what it says. As far back as in 1886, in the Supreme Court held that “the guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.” (Yick Wo v. Hopkins) Not just members of a certain religion, not just members of a certain race, and not just individuals born in the U.S. All persons. All people.
....,on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.
Sorry Drifter. One of the minority religions in those countries are Christians.
DigitalDrifter, post: 16507564Doesn't matter what he says, the official policy as of now ALL citizens of the seven countries are banned temporarily.
You are a fool. A Trump duped fool.
It matters that Trump said:
US will prioritize Christian refugees
By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor
Updated 11:28 AM EST, Mon January 30, 201
DigitalDrifter, post: 16507564
Because his EO says (see red bold) this;
Trump’s executive order officially prefers Christians and Christianity and disfavors Muslims and Islam. The order is sloppy and at times indecipherable—it was apparently signed without any input or reviewby the executive agencies it affects—but whoever wrote it was smart enough to attempt to dress up its animus in pretext. That pretense, however, does nothing to obscure its discriminatory intent and effect. In addition to targeting seven majority-Muslim countries, the ordersuspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, no matter a refugee’s country of origin. When that freeze ends, the order directs the secretary of state, “in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security,” to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.(Emphasis mine.)
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.
So surely what Trump said about pioritizing minority Christians in Majority Muslim countries publically will show up in the courtroom.
Trump's EO is doomed. That is why the fired AG would not defend it. She was right and it is for certain that Trump is an utter loose lipped fuckup for his deplorable Muslim haters.
...Judge Napolitano said it appears that Judge Robart is second-guessing the wisdom and the justice of the executive order.
I see you have no facts to rebut those Lawyers...how surprising...I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.
And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.
Sorry, but being partisan jackwads like you doesn't prove you or they are correct. It just proves that you're all partisan jackwads, and we already knew that.
Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.Don't get too comfy throwing around the word "Unconstitutional" unless you're prepared the cite the specific provision of the Constitution that's being violated.
Here you go....
Clear Violation
5.5k
1.5k
191
All the many ways Trump’s Muslim ban goes against the Constitution.
1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.
2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.
3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*
4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.
They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....and the President has vast powers over immigration policy....as obama showed when he banned Iraqis for 6 months.....and created the list of 7 countries with terrorism problems....Actually stupid ass I'm not surprised that you continue to make an ass of yourself...They aren't citizens moron..........none of those things apply.....
Here, cocksuck these facts:
Non-Citizens and the Constitution
As immigration attorneys, we are careful to explain to our clients their rights and obligations under U.S. immigration law. We tell our non-citizen clients all the time that only U.S citizens are guaranteed entry into the U.S. However, we also stress that even non-citizens have rights under the Constitution. The Executive Order, whether on purpose or not, severely limits, in our opinion, Constitutional protections for non-citizens.
Briefly, even non-citizens have the following guarantees under the U.S Constitution:
Unless the Constitution expressly sets apart its protections to U.S. citizens, it protects non-citizens too.
- Equal protection of the laws
- Political freedoms of speech and association,
- Due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake.
To be sure, there are important distinctions. For example, green card holders cannot vote like citizens despite being able to live and work freely in the U.S.
Nevertheless, when the Constitution says “all persons” or “all people,” the Supreme Court has held that it means what it says. As far back as in 1886, in the Supreme Court held that “the guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.” (Yick Wo v. Hopkins) Not just members of a certain religion, not just members of a certain race, and not just individuals born in the U.S. All persons. All people.
Oh, WELL, if a bunch of lawyers who make their living getting people into the country say that Trump is wrong, that settles it. Surely, THEY couldn't have any sort of bias.
I see you have no facts to rebut those Lawyers...how surprising...Oh, WELL, if a bunch of lawyers who make their living getting people into the country say that Trump is wrong, that settles it. Surely, THEY couldn't have any sort of bias.
Btw, they cites a little thing called the U.S. Constitution, maybe trump and you ought to check it out before the both of you continue to make fools of yourself...
Kleenex Will Clean House HereDigitalDrifter, post: 16496506Dimocrats do not care what our country turns into. They can't wait until the population of Muslims reaches a substantial percentage.
So there is the unconstitutional bigoted discrimination that true freedom loving Americans abhor.
You are a perfect example of why Trumpty Dumpty's EO was restrained.
Your concern is not about danger. It is about safe and legal population growth where Chrustisnity is in decline.
You want the Federal Government to protect one specific religion. The majority religion since the founding.
Can't do that, bigot.
Trail of CrybabiesAnd then proceeded to order the murder of thousands of Native Americans. And this is not the 19th Century. Today, Jackson would have been impeached and removed from the Presidency.
Thomas Jefferson was still alive when Jackson ran for the presidency, and told his friends that the man was dangerous, and should not be elected. The Native Americans who own a casino in Maine, seriously considered banning the use of $20 bills in their casino. Jackson was the closest we ever came to a dictator, before Trump, and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent native Americans.
Yes, and he also adopted a Native American boy and raised him as his son. You obviously never studied American history enough to hear of Jacksonian Democrats.
Jackson is like Trump in many ways. He loved the American people and did not give two shits about who knew it.
...and Hitler was good to his dog, too.....
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
Oh, I don't think so. The Cherokee was a civilized tribe. They farmed land that they had improved themselves, and in many cases, had legally bought rather than just being reservation land. They had treaties They had a written language.They had their own newspaper. However, gold was discovered in North Georgia, but unfortunately, it was on Cherokee reservation land. So, Jackson defied his own federal courts and threw them off the land. Yes, he had adopted an indian boy, and you are telling me that indians did not, and do not hate the bastard?
Therefore, these peaceful farmers were robbed of their land. Treaties were broken, and they were force marched to Oklahoma, which was then known as "Indian Territory". Now, there is not a single indian reservation left in "Indian territory".
Judicial Review Is Also Obiter Dictum and Therefore Non-BindingHow is a judge NOT a threat to democracy and freedom when he issues rulings based upon HIS opinion of a policy of a president? How is somebody who thinks a judge has that authority NOT a threat to democracy and freedom?
We do not live in a dictatorship where the President is above the law.
You are stupid and not listening.
That is what Federal judges are sworn to do.
You are saying that no Federal judge can rule on any matter regarding national security. That is absurd. That is ignorant. That is dangerous.
As presidente, Trump could write an executive order for Federal Marshals, to sieze a bank supposedly involved in funding terrorists merely because Trump's kleptocrat buddies here and abroad could not get a cheap loan or they wouldn't launder money.
So in your dream dictatorship no judge could restrain that order and havoc because it was made on the grounds of a threat to national security.
The bank would have no means to defend themselves from your dictator.
You are dangerous to liberty, capitalism and the American way.
There seems to be no worry here about a judge being above the law. It seems a bit of a conflict of interest for a judge to be the final arbiter of his or her authority, and that that somehow preserves democracy and freedom.
.
Judge Napolitano said a major factor in this case is that the plaintiffs aren't people trying to enter the U.S., but states who are suing on behalf of those people.
This "so-called judge" does immigration work on the side for refugees. Now we know why he stopped the ban of refugees coming into this country. Follow the money.Until the stay is granted, the Trump admin needs to obey the court order.
At least that's how the USA used to work. Trump-thugs see things differently. They see themselves as being above the law.
How is it a lie then? The plaintiffs have to be the people claiming hardship, not states acting on their behalf.Tilly, post: 16513015Judge Napolitano said a major factor in this case is that the plaintiffs aren't people trying to enter the U.S., but states who are suing on behalf of those people.
Napolitano is a liar. The State of Washington is suing on behalf of its American citizens and businesses that have shown harm by Trump's political stunt to please Muslim hating deplorables. The Feds could not defend there claims that vetted visa holders from those countries posed a threat.
And the language in the EO expresses future discrimination against the majority religion in those countries. That would be Islam.
Trail of CrybabiesThomas Jefferson was still alive when Jackson ran for the presidency, and told his friends that the man was dangerous, and should not be elected. The Native Americans who own a casino in Maine, seriously considered banning the use of $20 bills in their casino. Jackson was the closest we ever came to a dictator, before Trump, and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent native Americans.
Yes, and he also adopted a Native American boy and raised him as his son. You obviously never studied American history enough to hear of Jacksonian Democrats.
Jackson is like Trump in many ways. He loved the American people and did not give two shits about who knew it.
...and Hitler was good to his dog, too.....
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
Oh, I don't think so. The Cherokee was a civilized tribe. They farmed land that they had improved themselves, and in many cases, had legally bought rather than just being reservation land. They had treaties They had a written language.They had their own newspaper. However, gold was discovered in North Georgia, but unfortunately, it was on Cherokee reservation land. So, Jackson defied his own federal courts and threw them off the land. Yes, he had adopted an indian boy, and you are telling me that indians did not, and do not hate the bastard?
Therefore, these peaceful farmers were robbed of their land. Treaties were broken, and they were force marched to Oklahoma, which was then known as "Indian Territory". Now, there is not a single indian reservation left in "Indian territory".
I'm sure you're filled with tears of joy that AJ is being replaced on the $20 bill by a coyote for gangbangers. The savages were incapable of staying civilized for long and would soon have gone back to their natural habits of looting, raping, kidnapping, and scalping.
The plaintiffs have to be the people claiming hardship, not states acting on their behalf.
This "so-called judge" does immigration work on the side for refugees. Now we know why he stopped the ban of refugees coming into this country. Follow the money.
Unsubstantiated by a reputable source. Fake news.They are going back to scalping? Interesting, since scalping was introduced in America by the colonists, who paid a bounty on all Indian scalps brought in
Until the stay is granted, the Trump admin needs to obey the court order.
No, they don't need to obey the court order... it's unconstitutional.
It's no different than if the court issued a ruling saying you can't post on a message board!
I have always wondered what possible jurisdiction judges think they have when they issue sweeping injunctions like this.
I expect this to seriously backfire on the liberals and activist judges who've used this tactic to enact their will before. I can definitely see Trump's administration using this opportunity to puncture this fantasy bubble.
This "so-called judge" does immigration work on the side for refugees. Now we know why he stopped the ban of refugees coming into this country. Follow the money.
That was before he became a federal judge and it was pro bono. And there is no money to follow you lying sack of dog dirt.
He also served families with special needs children.
That may bother Trumpees since Trump Mocks the disabled even for the camers.
trump dissaproval at 53 after two weeks and climbing. Approval at 42. The 39s are coming soon.
Unsubstantiated by a reputable source. Fake news.They are going back to scalping? Interesting, since scalping was introduced in America by the colonists, who paid a bounty on all Indian scalps brought in
I see you have no facts to rebut those Lawyers...how surprising...Oh, WELL, if a bunch of lawyers who make their living getting people into the country say that Trump is wrong, that settles it. Surely, THEY couldn't have any sort of bias.
Btw, they cites a little thing called the U.S. Constitution, maybe trump and you ought to check it out before the both of you continue to make fools of yourself...
Marky, you're the one who hasn't refuted facts. You keep basing your argument on emotional political opinions which have no legal standing. Trump was right and you're eventually going to lose this silly political dogfight, and that's unfortunate for you guys, you just continue to lose. It's almost sad to watch it happen, thinking you've all invested your hopes and emotions in this and your vision is about to be crushed again. Yet, you all seem to get some sort of rise out of being able to strut around and crow because some obscure left-wing judge perverted the Constitution to make a political statement. So you get a few days of being able to run around waving the Constitution like you're all James Fucking Madison... only to end up losing yet another battle.
In a really sadistic sense, it's kind of funny. I love how you've all set yourselves up for embarrassing disappointment when this doesn't turn out your way. I guess you'll go out there and burn or break things again, that's usually how you respond when defeated. Once again, you will have demonstrated to mainstream Americans that you are too incompetent to govern.
Well boss of no one, seems you are either a very stupid reader or a partisan bitch...Marky, you're the one who hasn't refuted facts
You keep basing your argument on emotional political opinions which have no legal standing.
