Stacking the Deck: The Muslim Ban

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

Apparently the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. However, any measure taken by the POTUS cannot be in violation of the Constitution.

Here's an article that explains why so many feel that Trump's immigration order is unconstitutional:

Why Trump's Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...utional-214722

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Apparently the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. However, any measure taken by the POTUS cannot be in violation of the Constitution.

Here's an article that explains why so many feel that Trump's immigration order is unconstitutional:

Why Trump's Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...utional-214722

And that is precisely the kind of thinking that will lead us to more conflict.
How many majority Muslim countries have a representative government and freedom of religion for all religions?
Give me one.
The go to for years on this was Turkey. Not so anymore.
And in almost all of these countries the penalty for converting from Muslim to another religion is death.
Until the Muslim religion has a dynamic shift away from violence, we will be at war with those who take their religion seriously.
Sadly, I see no way for this shift to happen.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

And that is precisely the kind of thinking that will lead us to more conflict.
How many majority Muslim countries have a representative government and freedom of religion for all religions?
Give me one.
The go to for years on this was Turkey. Not so anymore.
And in almost all of these countries the penalty for converting from Muslim to another religion is death.
Until the Muslim religion has a dynamic shift away from violence, we will be at war with those who take their religion seriously.
Sadly, I see no way for this shift to happen.

Speaking of representative governments. The reason the 7 countries are on the list is solely because they do not have mechanisms in place in order for us to properly vet the people coming from those countries. That is the main reason for the EO.

It's about the vetting.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

And that is precisely the kind of thinking that will lead us to more conflict.

I disagree. For example, if the President gave an executive order that contradicted the Second Amendment, it would be challenged by the courts and found to be unconstitutional. Imagine a President issuing an executive order curtailing the practice of a given religion. The courts would have to be able to overrule the order and declare it unconstitutional to preserve the freedom of religion. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Not the executive orders of the President.

Therefore, if the courts rule that an executive order has animus against a constitutionally protected right, a legally protected group of people, or equal representation under the law.... the court very well has the authority to overrule and strike down the executive order.

How many majority Muslim countries have a representative government and freedom of religion for all religions?
Give me one.
The go to for years on this was Turkey. Not so anymore.
And in almost all of these countries the penalty for converting from Muslim to another religion is death.
Until the Muslim religion has a dynamic shift away from violence, we will be at war with those who take their religion seriously.
Sadly, I see no way for this shift to happen.

It doesn't matter what other countries do. We must abide by the Constitution. That includes the President.

[aegsm76]

A - here is what I get after reading the article.
If BHO had signed this EO it would be legal, because he was not hostile to Muslims.
But, since we believe that Trump is hostile to Muslims it is unconstitutional.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - here is what I get after reading the article.
If BHO had signed this EO it would be legal, because he was not hostile to Muslims.
But, since we believe that Trump is hostile to Muslims it is unconstitutional.

The reality is there are well-funded groups and persons in government and media and business who are hell bent on destroying America, plain and simple. No need to speculate about arcane philosophical issues when your enemies are inside the castle walls trying everything they can to JUST OPEN THE GATES to the blood thirsty hordes of Orcs outside.

Realism brings a clarity to the situation that makes for faster and easier decision making.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. But I think you aren’t seeing exactly what I’m seeing. The executive order was an excellent political move. If there is an attack, it stands to help Trump say, “See, I’m right. The left didn’t get it.” Or (if the executive order is somehow overturned) “See, federal judges and the left allowed this to happen.” Politically speaking, it is an excellent move. In both scenarios, the Trump would definitely impose restrictions on freedom and expand the power of his office. I’m talking about the politics behind the move.

Oh, I see exactly your point. And MY point is that the current situation is such that there is NO "losing move" possible in that regard. Check and mate.

Until somebody decides to just overturn the game board...

Well, I can’t speak for every protest, but I can tell you that I know several protestors personally, and no…. they aren’t paid.

You didn't read what I said: paid astroturfers AND useless idiot SJWs. The idiots volunteer for these things, the smarter ones get paid.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Blessed are the smart people who can actually grasp the premise of the original post. Lol

Blessed are the people who learn to reject propaganda.

In any form.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Speaking of representative governments. The reason the 7 countries are on the list is solely because they do not have mechanisms in place in order for us to properly vet the people coming from those countries. That is the main reason for the EO.

It's about the vetting.

Did I ever tell you that you are very smart.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Oh, I see exactly your point. And MY point is that the current situation is such that there is NO "losing move" possible in that regard. Check and mate.

Until somebody decides to just overturn the game board...



You didn't read what I said: paid astroturfers AND useless idiot SJWs. The idiots volunteer for these things, the smarter ones get paid.