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.

 

9th Circuit Enjoy the Blood on your Hands Supreme Court Last Chance for Redemption

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

We'll that was total avoidance of a direct question, I even asked nicely!

Basically I take many of your ilk don't give a crap about the Constitution except when language agrees with your political position.

In this case that very very direct language pointedly says you and others on wrong side of issue completely depend on activist judges to redeem an anti-constitutional belief.

The language in Constitution cannot be any plainer or clearer regarding lack of standing in both courts.

This is judicial coup against duly elected government carrying out it legal authority to apply law as written by Congress.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Isn't constitution assumes the people have inherent rights, and it is specifically spell out certain rights to protect the people from over reaching government actions, for example this EO? May be this EO have adverse affect (business interests, commerce) on people of the state of washington.

I don't have intelligence report that Trump have, but may be his attorneys fail to produce the real intent behind the ban.

If the real intent of protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks, shouldn't it start with Saudi ?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

I'm not an attorney, but since was a matter of a motion for a restraining order and not a lawsuit, that might have something to do with it.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I asked your take on constitutional language that's clear as a bell to me. But as you've agued legalities and points defending the two courts I and others I am sure would like to know how you wiggle out of and away from something unambiguously in conflict with your adamant defense.

That would be constitution itself spelling out that neither court has jurisdiction for anything to do with this matter at all period.


edit on 9-2-2017 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

The 9th did a fantastic job. They are in the right.
Trump is a fraud, and his scribe Bannon is a supremacist drunkard. Get your priorities straight.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Again, I guess you're a better attorney than those of the US Government.

I defer to your expertise.


edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GreyScale




Please point out to me in the Constitution the rights of non-citizens.

If you read the ruling, you might find that it is based upon the rights of the State of Washington.


If you read what I responded to, the poster called Trump's EO "Unconstitutional".

So please point out to me in the Constitution the rights of non-citizens.

So, you know, we can decide whether the EO is against the Constitution or not.

Thank you in advance...




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale

Apparently, the court agreed that the EO infringes on the rights of the State of Washington by preventing people who were legally allowed to be there from getting there. If I'm reading the decision correctly.

edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: GreyScale

People have not clue what that ruling was all about, it can not have anything pointing out to constitutional rights of foreigners none citizens of the US because the constitution gives them none.

This is base on the rights of states within their borders and only applies to commerce, their financial distress from the ban and is limited to legal citizens rights.

it did touch the issuing of visas only for those that already had them issue to them, but not on how the government can issue visas or not.



They also don't have a clue as to Trump's legal standing on the matter under the law...


Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182

“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.”


To quote him, even a bad high school student can understand this.

Yet liberals don't.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Phoenix

Again, I guess you're a better attorney than those of the US Government.

I defer to your expertise.



Nah, my take is you perfectly understand the answer to the constitutional question will impugn the political stance of those opposing the EO and are avoiding an answer.

The wording is so simple no one needs to be a lawyer to understand it clearly.

In fact no doubt about it.

I'd say that's why tweet said "See you in court"



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182

“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.”

Please read this.

Then understand that Washington State is part of the United States.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale

Oh, I've read it. Believe me.
The decision also talks about the notion that the president has some sort of absolute power. Have you read it?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale

The supreme court will have the last say so, after all the circuit are under pressure from some states due that the states been under pressure by unruly protest.

We may see more protest in front of the Supreme court, but interestingly the supreme court seem no to be manipulated by intimidation.


edit on 9-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

An interesting but meandering point with the State of Washington, however states are expressly forbidden from any sort of treaty with foreign entities by the US Constitution. Furthermore VISA's would be the exclusive area of the State Department with is administered by the Executive Branch on gerneral operational policies unless specifically forbidden by law.

Presidential executive orders on admissions and removals of various specified parties are well precedented.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix


What you expect from 8 years of unlawfulness in our nation, when many laws regarding immigration went ignored.

Now people can not tell the true from facts as give by the interpretations of mass media, tweeter and facebook.


edit on 9-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GreyScale

Oh, I've read it. Believe me.
The decision also talks about the notion that the president has some sort of absolute power. Have you read it?


~sigh~


The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.


Look, I can type all night and give you the reality of this decision but you're not going to agree.

So let's agree that you're wrong and I'll go on to something more interesting.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
I'm calling it now, we will be attacked by terrorists from one of these countries and the liberal media will blame it on Trump while Trump will say that he tried to stop it with this bill thus causing tempers to flare up even further and widen the gap between the people further.


Have you ever warned someone of something, and then they got "zapped" because they didn't take your advice? In my job as an advisor, it happens regularly, but my conscience is clear.

Likewise, President Trump will have a clear conscience.. knowing that he tried his best to use every legal tool at his disposal.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GreyScale




Please point out to me in the Constitution the rights of non-citizens.

If you read the ruling, you might find that it is based upon the rights of the State of Washington.


Yes, and not just the state...other parties such as businesses have an interest and standing for challenging certain provisions of the EO



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Yup, every and any imagined right invented out of thin air is fair game in kangaroo courts when discarding constitution, civics lessons and brought up on propaganistic pap that serves as news.

Spoiled rotten children, as spoiled rotten adults.

Have no appreciation of history, what's gone on in the world nor understand with freedom comes responsibilty.

The mistake on Titanic was turning, I think meeting head on is way to go.

It's a pain for me to watch my country devolve to self interest instead of good for all, however I think also a majority believe same and eventually daylight will prevail over darkness.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar


An interesting but meandering point with the State of Washington, however states are expressly forbidden from any sort of treaty with foreign entities by the US Constitution.
What? Did Washington try to make a treaty with another country?




top topics



 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join