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: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...
Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!
What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?
www.law.cornell.edu...
9f
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Case closed, Constitutionality of ban upheld by already tested federal law, authority of POTUS to control immigration and visitation from ANY nation, group, or class of visitor unquestioned by both law and SCOTUS precedent.
Y'all can keep claiming it isn't Constitutional or legal all ya want, facts prove you 100% wrong.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Case closed, Constitutionality of ban upheld by already tested federal law, authority of POTUS to control immigration and visitation from ANY nation, group, or class of visitor unquestioned by both law and SCOTUS precedent.
Y'all can keep claiming it isn't Constitutional or legal all ya want, facts prove you 100% wrong.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Case closed, Constitutionality of ban upheld by already tested federal law, authority of POTUS to control immigration and visitation from ANY nation, group, or class of visitor unquestioned by both law and SCOTUS precedent.
Y'all can keep claiming it isn't Constitutional or legal all ya want, facts prove you 100% wrong.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Case closed, Constitutionality of ban upheld by already tested federal law, authority of POTUS to control immigration and visitation from ANY nation, group, or class of visitor unquestioned by both law and SCOTUS precedent.
Y'all can keep claiming it isn't Constitutional or legal all ya want, facts prove you 100% wrong.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: namelesss
The spirit of the order is to ban Muslims, that's pretty obvious. The letter of the law though is that it doesn't. It's banning everyone from those nations. Most of who it's banning are Muslims, but that doesn't mean they're being banned because they're Muslim.
originally posted by: namelesss
To see how absurd Conway’s logic is, consider this: If the president signs an executive order that discriminates against some African-Americans, it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t discriminate against all African-Americans—it’s still illegal.
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: 727Sky
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...
Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!
What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?
You ever read the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952... That pesky little law that Jimmy Carter used to kick out 15,000 Iranians back in 1979 ?
Didn't think so...
That might work for some, a Trumpish personal zinger to distract from the question.
A 'poisoned Tweet'...
I asked a question, and you have not answered it, attempted an end run...
'Alternative facts' would be more entertaining than that attempted distraction.
Besides, the courts (remember them? Thank Dog we got em, as corrupt as they are...) are here to run the Constitutionality and legality of our fearless monarch's decrees and edicts.
So far, muster is not being passed.
I predict that it will be a long, tedious road to impeachment...
Can you give links that show where Trump is losing court battles?
Did he not roll out his anti Muslim travel ban?
Did a number of courts not put the halter on enacting much of his decree?
Really? Have you missed this?
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...
Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!
What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?
www.law.cornell.edu...
9f
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Case closed, Constitutionality of ban upheld by already tested federal law, authority of POTUS to control immigration and visitation from ANY nation, group, or class of visitor unquestioned by both law and SCOTUS precedent.
Y'all can keep claiming it isn't Constitutional or legal all ya want, facts prove you 100% wrong.
So, you are attempting to say that a 'religion' can be interpreted as a 'class' that the POTUS can ban?
Really?
Oh, Constitution teacher, what says it about banning a 'religion'?
Can you pass that bit on, where he has the power to ban Muslims?
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: namelesss
The spirit of the order is to ban Muslims, that's pretty obvious. The letter of the law though is that it doesn't. It's banning everyone from those nations. Most of who it's banning are Muslims, but that doesn't mean they're being banned because they're Muslim.
Please read the article that I just saw, and posted, here;
www.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: mobiusmale
For some reason, and I doubt I will ever understand why...
Ever read the Constitution?
Feel free, then you'll understand what's 'wrong' with Trump's selective Muslim ban!
What would you want to bet that Trump NEVER read the Constitution through?
Why don't you quote the part in the constitution that pertains to what you allege is a Muslim ban.
More than 'I' allege a 'Muslim Ban', that is how the Trump himself stated it.
And I thought someone else already did that.
Find it.
Besides, you, most likely, have never read it through, perhaps now is a good time?
Go argue with the courts!
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Good luck!
It seems to me that I can spend hours crafting a great reply, only to find that I have wasted my time.
You have your beliefs.
As I said, time will tell about his decrees being legal or not.
He backed right down from his Muslim ban.
(Sorry if the term disturbs you, snowflake, more than half the world is using it!)
Why, suddenly he grew ethics?
Hardly, it was court ordered, and his henchmen were willing to defy the court!
How Kim Davis!
Just read the news.
I'm not going to play your silly game.
"Seeds planted in the darkest night sprout in the light of day!"
The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:
"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: namelesss
Read this.
FEDERAL JUDGE DECLINES TO RENEW RESTRAINING ORDER ON TRUMP TRAVEL BAN
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Good luck!
It seems to me that I can spend hours crafting a great reply, only to find that I have wasted my time.
You have your beliefs.
As I said, time will tell about his decrees being legal or not.
He backed right down from his Muslim ban.
(Sorry if the term disturbs you, snowflake, more than half the world is using it!)
Why, suddenly he grew ethics?
Hardly, it was court ordered, and his henchmen were willing to defy the court!
How Kim Davis!
Just read the news.
I'm not going to play your silly game.
"Seeds planted in the darkest night sprout in the light of day!"
The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:
"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."
I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion on the matter. But, until you come to me with some substance/facts/links to back what you claim as facts you are going to just continue to look like a buthurt babbling fool.
although his administration could still appeal the ruling and have the policy upheld.
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: namelesss
From your source..
although his administration could still appeal the ruling and have the policy upheld.
Guess what happened AFTER your story?