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.
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.
Because it's a band on only Muslims from those seven areas..If it's a Muslim ban, why does the ban only involve seven nations?
Shut up, boss. Proper posting requires one to note a continuation of the source. You did not do that, and now you are acting like a 12 year old. Report yourself for being immature.The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.
In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”
Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.
I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.
Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.
It IS linked, shitstain. Go fuck yourself.
Not in that post!
Again, go fuck yourself. It's linked in that post. It's in the quote and the post is a continuum of the quote. If you don't like it, report me to the mods. That's what I plan to do with you if you post again without addressing the thread topic... that is also a violation of board rules.
Boss, post: 16498923I asked you to show me where you get the idea that the law allows the court to override the president's decision or have any oversight whatsoever?
Come on moron. The law you are referring to does not override the Judicial Review granted to Federal Judges by the Constitution and states rights against an overpowering Federal Government.
"Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself.
Source: Boundless. “Checks and Balances.” Boundless Political Science Boundless, 08 Aug. 2016. Retrieved 05 Feb. 2017 from Checks and Balances"
Trump lost this one already and is making it worse by attacking a Federal Judge doing his job .
Shut up, boss. Proper posting requires one to note a continuation of the source. You did not do that, and now you are acting like a 12 year old. Report yourself for being immature.Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.
In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”
Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.
I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.
Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.
It IS linked, shitstain. Go fuck yourself.
Not in that post!
Again, go fuck yourself. It's linked in that post. It's in the quote and the post is a continuum of the quote. If you don't like it, report me to the mods. That's what I plan to do with you if you post again without addressing the thread topic... that is also a violation of board rules.
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.
Boss, post 16498948Furthermore, I am going to suggest that the president should instruct his AG to immediately file to have this judge removed. We cannot have judges interfering with presidential authority to protect the citizens of the United States, it could be a matter of grave national security. What if a president receives classified information that someone is going to try to sneak a nuclear bomb into the country? Does a judge have the right to interfere with his duty to try and prevent that? This is a potentially dangerous situation to be allowed and Trump needs to nip this in the bud right here and now.
Is it the entire population of seven majority Muslim Countries trying to sneak the bomb in?
Or is it a small group of individuals and the Intel is on it?
The former is implausible and the latter does not require an EO for the President to do what he needs to do.
There is nothing for a judge to review.
That is a moronic argument just about as moronic as your argument that the President has powers that Federal Judges in states can't check, halt and rescind.
Trump's Legal Team could not justify there was danger if vetted immigrants with approved visas entered the country. Trump failed. Get used to it.
Much more to come.
LOL Well, for now, the orange clown has lost. LOL
They all apply, while your juvenile assertions don't.None of those apply. Sorry.
The Dems will last as will the Pubs. It's the fascists like you that the overwhelming majority of Americans are going after politically.LOL Well, for now, the orange clown has lost. LOL
You better hope that someone from one of these countries doesn't commit a terrorist attack because if they do, your political party is toast.
They all apply, while your juvenile assertions don't.None of those apply. Sorry.
The Dems will last as will the Pubs. It's the fascists like you that the overwhelming majority of Americans are going after politically.LOL Well, for now, the orange clown has lost. LOL
You better hope that someone from one of these countries doesn't commit a terrorist attack because if they do, your political party is toast.
Europe has been flooded by illiterate misogynistic violent useless hard drug dealing muslim vermin.Admiral Rockwell Tory, post: 16498367New definition: Bigot - n. Anyone who disagrees with anything said by an America-hating liberal!
No a religious bigot is one calling for the US Government to limit the growth of Islam in the entire Western world.
I notice you can't wrap your brain around the absurdity of that bigotry.
So I disagree with that bigoted view of the world.
So the question is do you agree that the US Government must embark on a campaign diplomaticky and militarily to limit the growth of Islam in the entire Western world?
Let me know so I can vehemently disagree with you too.
So now you want to curtail the authority of the judiciary because he smacked trump in the mouth with the Constitution???...gtfoh...And now we have conservative idiots on this board saying that trump should ignore the Lawful Order of a Federal Judge...
Does it get anymore ludicrous???
The belief that some judge in one district can "lawfully" extend his control over the entire nation is a lot more ludicrous.
