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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

OMG, you idiots have forgotten everything you learned last week and are fighting this again?


United States Code-8 U.S.C - Section 1182 item F: (From 1953)

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the 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 non- immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


He can base his EO on ANYTHING HE WANTS. It could be denying all Japanese entry... all Muslims, all gays, all Liberals. These is no 1st Amendment violation because non-citizens ARE NOT CITIZENS and as such have no protections under the Constitution.

That the judges you are trying to champion can't understand that (it's based on a Supreme Court ruling in 1948, so there is precedence) then the judges are merely attempting to legislate from the bench.

I'm also going to type this REALLY slow, since you simply can't seem to understand it.

NON-CITIZENS HAVE NO US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

So the EO can't be unconstitutional simply because it is NOT the constitution of the planet earth, it is the constitution of the United States. You know, for it's citizens.

As for the asshat in Washington saying that it violates Washington's constitution, he's wrong. Because he apparently does not understand the Supremacy Clause.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Also, Federal Judges HAVE NO JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. Separation of powers... remember that?

Let me help you understand what is happening. Trump and team are currently acquiring targets. They have made an EO that was a continuance of Obama's, is well within the powers of the President (It is one of the actual powers of the Executive branch) and already has been ruled on in the Supreme court.

Once this is settled (in his favor, because there is no other realistic outcome unless there is a coup) then the judges who opposed this will be made example of.

Snowflakes will be further demoralized, the Democrats will be seen as merely sore losers with no real idea of how the legal system actually works, the Trump camp comes out stronger and media will be shown to be even more biased so they become even more inconsequential.

This is also probably the 4th move in a game of chess. Try to keep up.

/facepalm
edit on 22Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:33:50 -0600America/Chicago17th2017-02-14T22:33:50-06:00pmTuesdayAmerica/Chicago by GreyScale because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale




He can base his EO on ANYTHING HE WANTS.


Not if it violates the constitution and FYI a yuge part of the constitution limits the government that includes EOs. The constitution doesn't do much about granting rights.


Also ermm... why are you even bringing up Washington state

Try to keep up this thread is about the court case in Virginia.

It is all in the OPs source link.

If his EO simply barred entry of people from those countries it probably would have worked, but he made an exception in the EO if they passed a religious test which is unconstitutional.
edit on 14-2-2017 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Difference in treatment based on religion goes against the 1st Amendment.

Understand now?


Yeah. Here, in America. Not over in Syria.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale




I'm also going to type this REALLY slow, since you simply can't seem to understand it.

NON-CITIZENS HAVE NO US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.


I'm also going to type this REALLY slow, since you simply can't seem to understand it.

THE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE US CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS GOVERNMENT FROM IMPINGING ON INALIANABLE RIGHTS. IT DOES NOT BESTOW RIGHTS ON ANYONE.


Please take a Civil 101 class at your local community college, and try to keep up!

edit on 15-2-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The US constitution dictates what the US government can do to US citizens. Refugees do not have constitutional rights.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
FDR interned American citizens of Japanese ancestry. Clearly there are times when the US constitution takes an exception.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: cutiepies

We were at war with Japan at the time. A legitimate all out war, that ended with nuclear destruction.

The USA hasn't officially declared war, or is at war with any of the countries' governments mentioned in the president's EO.

If anything the US has an undeclared was against Islamic extremist.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

The US is at war with jihadists since 2001 when Congress authorized the president to fight the war on terror. Each of these 7 countries other than Iran is infested with jihadists. Iran is the world's biggest exporter of terrorism. The Japan case is comparable to these 7 countries.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=21900157]cutiepies[/post

"The War on Terror" is like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Illiteracy". Vague social cash cows, with a purposely obscure enemy that will never be identified or captured.

The US might as well declare war on Ninjas and Jedi Knights!



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Just for the sake of argument, can a Muslim from China enter the US, can a Muslim from India enter the US, can a Muslim from any other nation other than the 7 nations specified as a security risk enter the US. If the answer is yes I fail to see how this is a ban on Muslims. The seven nations represent roughly 12% of the Muslim population but somehow this has become a ban on Muslims? How so?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargamel

A better question would be "Can a Jihadist from China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc., enter the US, since you claim that we're at war with "Jihadist"?





edit on 15-2-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Sweet, didn't say they were citizens so I'm glad you were able to read that.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I don't recall every saying we ( I'm Canadian) are at war with Jihadists. I just want clarification on a "Muslim" ban that only covers 12% of the Muslim population



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargamel

Well, I'm in the US, and am an American citizen. So, when I say we, I mean we Americans, not you and me.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Of course they can enter from Russia. Obama determined these 7 countries, not Trump.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Fair enough. But regardless of what "war" is happening wouldn't a ban on Muslims cover all Muslims? I'm not trying to be an ass, I just want a clarification on why people are calling the EO a ban on Muslims when in fact it only covers 12% of the worlds population of Muslims.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargamel



But regardless of what "war" is happening wouldn't a ban on Muslims cover all Muslims?


What if Trump just called for a ban on all Catholics from Ireland, because of the IRA, but not Irish Protestants? That would still be unconstitutional, I think, because it calls for special acknowledgement of one religion over another.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: [post=21900157]cutiepies[/post

"The War on Terror" is like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Illiteracy". Vague social cash cows, with a purposely obscure enemy that will never be identified or captured.

The US might as well declare war on Ninjas and Jedi Knights!





You know, when ninjas and Jedis kill 3,000 American civilians and millions of them are out celebrating and ulalating at the skies like baboons in a zoo, we'll talk about declaring war on them. Until that happens, your comparison is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: [post=21900157]cutiepies[/post

"The War on Terror" is like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Illiteracy". Vague social cash cows, with a purposely obscure enemy that will never be identified or captured.

The US might as well declare war on Ninjas and Jedi Knights!





You know, when ninjas and Jedis kill 3,000 American civilians and millions of them are out celebrating and ulalating at the skies like baboons in a zoo, we'll talk about declaring war on them. Until that happens, your comparison is ridiculous.



i would love to see those pictures of the millions celebrating the killing of those 3000 or so killed in that incident, could you please show me? or are you working for CNN fake news



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
just to clarify, are you a judge, lawyer of some kind of political law professor? you seem to think you know way more about the interpretation of the law than the common man and apparently more than supreme court judges. correct me if i'm wrong but weren't the judges arguing that the executive order has to be based off an immediate clear and present danger with strong proof of past, present and future attacks?

imo we must remain strong and tough against islamic terrorism and illegal immigration, i am all for a stronger vetting process and limits to the number of all refugees and immigrants that we can comfortably accommodate. imo making bans and walls does nothing but create further division and hatred.
edit on 15-2-2017 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join