It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LSU0408
What would consider the public hate sessions aimed at the white race? Unless you consider it revenge or justice, it fits right along with the others you mentioned.
originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: LSU0408
These things you consider hate sessions... whatever they may be - and I notice you didn't give examples - are they sponsored by someone running for the President of the USA, likely to be the Republican nominee, influencing millions with a chance of becoming President and therefore in charge of the worlds largest military and nuclear arsenal who appears to want to be able to promote state-sponsored bigotry if they come to power?
Or are they pockets of individual or regional dissidence, from perceived social injustices and/or crime without organised structure?
I condemn all hate. Nothing is solved by it at all. I condemn "tit for tat" hate even more so because that implies a level of morose stupidity.
Blaming a majority for the actions of a few is stupid.
For example - Do you own a gun? If so, are you a spree killer? Shouldn't you be barred from being in pubic just in case you are? - thats exactly the same argument Trump is using, just pointed at a slightly different group.
once you start down the slippery slope of singling out a group, blaming them for all the problems in the world, tagging them, excluding them and generally giving carte blanche tacit approval for societal hate, atrocites happen.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: eisegesis
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eisegesis
He already did that.
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.
I thought the proposed action was deemed constitutional? A little extreme, but the President reserves the right if they believe National Security is being compromised. Why is it unconstitutional?
truthinmedia.com...
Ok there is a difference there. It is saying that Trump has the authority to do this. Which he would. Presidents have in the past instituted bans on peoples. The difference here is that banning all Muslims is a violation of the first amendment as well. So while he would have the authority to do this, it is still a highly unconstitutional action. All it would take is a challenge in the courts to overturn that policy.
originally posted by: eisegesis
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: eisegesis
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eisegesis
He already did that.
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.
I thought the proposed action was deemed constitutional? A little extreme, but the President reserves the right if they believe National Security is being compromised. Why is it unconstitutional?
truthinmedia.com...
Ok there is a difference there. It is saying that Trump has the authority to do this. Which he would. Presidents have in the past instituted bans on peoples. The difference here is that banning all Muslims is a violation of the first amendment as well. So while he would have the authority to do this, it is still a highly unconstitutional action. All it would take is a challenge in the courts to overturn that policy.
Sorry, I meant to address this earlier. Work and all...
The constitution only applies to those living in and returning to the US that already call it home (returning citizens). Therefore, it would remain constitutional and does not conflict with the First Amendment. Unless I'm mistaken, his proposal only effects non-citizens trying to enter the US.