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.

 

Donald Trump ruled an outlaw for violating the First Amendment of the Constitution

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
And this isn't even about religion. If you go to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Shia vs Sunni is the name of the game. They do not see themselves as Muslims. Shia and Sunni slaughter each other by the hundreds of thousands there.




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
a reply to: windword

He or she can only rule on the EO, not what Donald Trump said in the past. People change. Their thinkings change.


Well, that's your opinion, but it is apparently incorrect, since the lawyers offered Trump and CO's own testimony against them, as in any court, and won. That's why there's a 5th Amendment and Miranda Rights.

Trump and CO did this to themselves. They're the one's that incriminated themselves, not the fake news media or activist so called judges.




edit on 14-2-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: masterofuniverse

The Constitution of the United States limits what government can and cannot do, including the President.

From you link:

The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing laws that favour one religion over another.


The President, Donald Trump, violated the Constitution of United States in his Executive Order.


Except the law clearly allows the president to exclude aliens from a location or a class of aliens that threaten the security of the country. That would mean non-citizens, even non-citizens of a certain religion if that religion was found to be a threat. If all Buddhists suddenly became lawless cannibal zombies tomorrow, the President could ban then from entry for security reasons.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: masterofuniverse

Your logic is broken.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The Constitution doesn't allow for its violation, not by any government office or official, not even the President of the United States. The Constitution specifically restricts what government offices and officials can and cannot do.

Not even the President has the right to violate the US Constitution.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I would wager most of the people in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Libya are not Muslims. They do not practice. They are mostly non religious, as in the US.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

How has Donald Trump violated the constitution? I don't see any.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

The Constitution doesn't allow for its violation, not by any government office or official, not even the President of the United States. The Constitution specifically restricts what government offices and officials can and cannot do.

Not even the President has the right to violate the US Constitution.






I wonder why, then, if this law has been on the books and used freely by presidents, including the all-time devil Bush and even Obama, that suddenly this law is under such scrutiny?

Clearly, since it was so widely used since other presidents and has been on the books since 1952, it has been challenged before, no?

If not, then why not? Also, it is very telling that the courts ruling do not cite actual law but instead rely on their feelings and things said by Trump on the campaign trail to strike it down. That is not how the judicial branch is supposed to operate. They are supposed to have actual law on their side and case precedent, not "mean things."
edit on 14-2-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: masterofuniverse

So that's a "no" on sourcing your "less than 0.1%" claim, then?

I see what the shtick is now: spew your opinion, repeat it ad nauseam, demand other people source their information, then when you finally get the legs kicked out from your table you stop replying directly to anybody and just ignore whatever is said that doesn't support your opinion.

Cute.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I seem to recall FDR interned Japanese American CITIZENS in CAMPS for YEARS. Not a peep about that. Totally constitutional.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There's a number of articles that highlight the differences between Trump's travel ban and Obama's. Pretty easy to read up on.

If one were so inclined, anyway.
edit on 14-2-2017 by Shamrock6 because: I dropped my pizza



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
a reply to: windword

How has Donald Trump violated the constitution? I don't see any.


Isn't this your thread?

From your OP link


A US district judge in Virginia has ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order barring entry from seven countries is unconstitutional.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing laws that favour one religion over another.


It's all laid out in the article you linked. Demanding me to explain it you, while you disagree with the judges, is not productive.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
How be let's send these judges to Syria and see the horror there. Bet the next day they ban all refugees from Syria.

www.reddit.com...
edit on 14-2-2017 by masterofuniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: masterofuniverse

The Constitution of the United States limits what government can and cannot do, including the President.

From you link:

The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing laws that favour one religion over another.


The President, Donald Trump, violated the Constitution of United States in his Executive Order.


Except the law clearly allows the president to exclude aliens from a location or a class of aliens that threaten the security of the country. That would mean non-citizens, even non-citizens of a certain religion if that religion was found to be a threat. If all Buddhists suddenly became lawless cannibal zombies tomorrow, the President could ban then from entry for security reasons.



Finally a brain in the convo.

"Except in time of..."

..pretty much supersedes any rights granted.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
How be let's send these judges to Syria and see the horror there. Bet the next day they ban all refugees from Syria.

www.reddit.com...


Lol and I'm out. This just got idiotic.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Because, when Obama did what he did, he took a legal and constitutional road to address his concerns.

As Shamrock says, it's easy enough to read up on, if one was so inclined, and was truly sincere in wanting to understanding the difference.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ketsuko

There's a number of articles that highlight the differences between Trump's travel ban and Obama's. Pretty easy to read up on.

If one were so inclined, anyway.


There's also a lot of articles that highlight why his temporary stay is perfectly constitutional loaded with all kinds of judicial precedent. Pretty easy to read up on.

If one were so inclined, anyway.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Americans cause this massacre in Syria. They should take responsibility.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: masterofuniverse

Considering the entire argument is based on a lie from the get-go, the so-called "muslim ban" that is a bogus accusation, this is a frivolous suit.

It strikes me that the establishment Democrats in the government are one day, perhaps in 4 years, perhaps in 8, perhaps longer but one day, going to rue the day they decided to play these childish and assbrained games. There will be a seated Democrat in the White House and the nation will face a crisis of national security. That POTUS will discover in horror that every step they attempt to take to secure the country from the threat leads their foot squarely into a tightly coiled pile left by today's establishment Democrats... effectively neutering the office of President to the point where nothing can get done without some whiny idiotic threat of a lawsuit.
edit on 14-2-2017 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yea, but you asked "if not, why not?" and I answered you.

Unlike some in this conversation, I read legal opinions from both sides of an issue, not just the side I happen to agree with.

indeed.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join