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.

 

Federal Judge in Hawaii Has blocked Travel Ban Hours before it is to Take Effect

page: 12
19
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The judge actually can make a decision based upon trump's words, but he's not allowed to cherry-pick them for cause of intent. The judge used the words muslim and ban, but left out ALL. Therefore it's clear his judgement was based solely upon personal feelings, and not actual US law.

the ban as proposed does not reflect Trump's words, therefore his words cannot be used as intent.


Cherry pick? The judge can just choose an entire orchard. Trump says nutty things.

Doesn't matter, trump called for ALL (total and complete shutdown, aka the same as ALL) muslims to be banned, this does not do that. AGAIN, and I seriously don't know why I keep repeating myself, but this EO does NOT shut down ALL muslim immigration or entry to the US.


He realized it wouldn't fly, but the intent was there. Therefore, you get the judge's statement on mathematics of the whole on the establishment clause.

The legal part has been lost, twice. At least, didn't more than 1 judge block it the first time? I am ready to see round 3.

I am sure it won't include martial law in Hawaii, as on person kept suggesting.
edit on 15-3-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: joshysway
Thank you Hawaii!


Thank you for what? Really.

What are you thankful for regarding this decision?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Why did OBAMA isolate these 7 countries as DANGEROUS, but not enact his own Travel Ban? Maybe he's up to no good and doesn't want President Trump to mess up his plans.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: joshysway
Thank you Hawaii!


Thank you for what? Really.

What are you thankful for regarding this decision?

I am. I answered that early post with a flag of hawaii and a marching band performing 'Celebration'.

Thankful a judge sees this for what it is.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Jerseymilker

I'm starting to wonder which branch of government is actually in charge. The president or the #ing flunky Obama judges. This is stupid. These people want all Americans dead yet these people just won't learn. I think there all retarded. Oh wait that wasn't pc. Oops. F$%$tards. That works better.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Phoenix

Why did OBAMA isolate these 7 countries as DANGEROUS, but not enact his own Travel Ban? Maybe he's up to no good and doesn't want President Trump to mess up his plans.



I posted earlier the Obama plan, you must scroll up. That wasn't the case. You have to scroll up. I am getting tired of posting the same things over and over.
edit on 15-3-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


Trump made it very clear that was his intent.

Trump made it clear his intent was ALL.

This doesn't affect ALL.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Vector99


the ban as proposed does not reflect Trump's words


That's cos he is a liar.

Well hell, if that's the case his words cannot be used at all!

Thanks for clearing that up!



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: joshysway
Thank you Hawaii!


Thank you for what? Really.

What are you thankful for regarding this decision?

I am. I answered that early post with a flag of hawaii and a marching band performing 'Celebration'.

Thankful a judge sees this for what it is.


Here it is carewemust:

But Obama didn't do the same things with the list.


The Obama-signed law (2015) contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States;


The list did not name the countries as the most dangerous, but made travel from them to here more difficult.

This is wholly different from Trump's failed plans.


since 9/11, no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the seven countries, though there have been at least three non-deadly cases in which the perpetrator was connected to Iran or Somalia.
edit on 15-3-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy



1st amendment doesn't cover foreign nationals in their own country.


The 1st amendment covers any action the US government undertakes.

The US government cannot take any action that discriminates against any particular religion, whether it's US citizens or foreign nationals.



Sky is blue, btw.

Yeah, IN the USA only.

Prove where it covers foreign nationals in their own countries.

Because that's what they are pushing besides the Yemen to Waikiki tours the judge's brother in law runs as a basis for the TRO.









posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


Trump made it very clear that was his intent.

Trump made it clear his intent was ALL.

This doesn't affect ALL.



Can't get everything you want right away.

Baby steps.

Unless the constitution gets in the way.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Or a judge with bias



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy



1st amendment doesn't cover foreign nationals in their own country.


The 1st amendment covers any action the US government undertakes.

The US government cannot take any action that discriminates against any particular religion, whether it's US citizens or foreign nationals.



Sky is blue, btw.

Yeah, IN the USA only.

Prove where it covers foreign nationals in their own countries.

Because that's what they are pushing besides the Yemen to Waikiki tours the judge's brother in law runs as a basis for the TRO.








The President can't make a law that would effect whole groups that way, even in the near future. That would mean people travelling in and out of here on the basis of religion.

I know you don't live here.
edit on 15-3-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy



Sky is blue, btw. Yeah, IN the USA only.


Not sure what that means.



Prove where it covers foreign nationals in their own countries.


Is the Establishment clause not a limit on the actions the government can take in regards to religion?


The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman James Madison in 1789, who derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs of all kinds. The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, still it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Or a judge with bias


To those that do not understand constitutional principles, I can see why that may be an option.

Thank god we have rights. It protects us from idiots that lack the ability to understand such simplicity.
edit on 15-3-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

never knew you were a constitutional lawyer



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.


The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.




new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join