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: 14
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
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...



Forget the first part, it went over your head.

No, it does not violate the Establishment Clause or we couldn't have let so many jews in during WW2.







Strangest post I have seen in ...weeks.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.



You are wrong. His base has a thing against Muslims. He knew he couldn't block every Muslim majority country due to his business holdings. So, someone said...Obama made it difficult for travel from a list of countries...you could do that. If anyone complains..just say, "Obama did it too". Which he did not. Also keep in mind, Trump said many times that he would block Muslims from this country completely. Got him some votes from some idiots.



The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.



It targets Muslims.


EO doesn't say that.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, if the left want it so anyone can get into the country, let it be. Take all restrictions off of immigration, anyone can get into the USA no matter what they are like. We will have every criminal in the world coming here. Including Russians

Legally you can't discriminate I guess. Criminals used to be a minority.


Criminals are still a minority.

What seems to have become a majority is those that will sacrifice freedom for security.

I refuse to give up my freedoms and capitulate to those that are too chicken# to walk out the door, afraid of scary people that may come to "get them".



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The Trump EO is not banning anybody based on religion.

The "religion" thing is just coincidence.

War and Terrorism are happening in those countries.



And many others.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

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.



Again!!! SO WHAT?! lol.

He/potus has the power to ban anyone he wants.

WTF is so hard to understand?





No he doesn't. The President is chief executive. He isn't the king or a banana republic dictator. He has the power to butt up against the other two branches of government.

Per our founders, these act as both check and balance to one another. Sooner or later they will iron it all out.

If you recall, during the administration of his predecessor there was much talk of "spending political capital" or "he already spent his political capital on X, so he can't get Y pushed through.

This is the part of the system 45 doesn't understand: Washington runs on political capital. You have to earn it before you can spend it and if you run low, you have to earn some more first.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The Trump EO is not banning anybody based on religion.

The "religion" thing is just coincidence.

War and Terrorism are happening in those countries.



Then why isn't Columbia on the list? How about the UK?

UK nationals have more terror convictions in the US than people from the Sudan or Libya.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

never knew you were a constitutional lawyer


Don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to understand it.

Read it. Put your political biases aside and revel in the fact that you are protected from government tyranny based on religion.

Once you respect what freedoms you have, perhaps you will be kind enough to extend it to others.



Go and live among them, spread the word of freedom far and wide!

You missed your calling.

Oh, sorry, you can't do that.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.



Then why isn't Columbia on the list? How about Pakistan?


Ask that question to Trump.

Use Twitter.



Twitter is for teenage girls and, apparently, US presidents.

Notice you gave up on your line of debate.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

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.



So ISIS en masse can get visa's?

Show me where he doesn't have that power.

Never mind. You can't, sorry to ask such an impossible task from you.



No, they can't. ISIS is a known terrorist organization. They are already on the list of people to not allow entry.

Impossible task?



Yeah, you heard me.

But ISIS is muslim!! How can you ban them?!




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
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...



Forget the first part, it went over your head.

No, it does not violate the Establishment Clause or we couldn't have let so many jews in during WW2.







The War Refugee Board implemented by FDR included Jews and other refugees trying to flea the Nazi regime.

Horrible example.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

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.



So ISIS en masse can get visa's?

Show me where he doesn't have that power.

Never mind. You can't, sorry to ask such an impossible task from you.



No, they can't. ISIS is a known terrorist organization. They are already on the list of people to not allow entry.

Impossible task?



Yeah, you heard me.

But ISIS is muslim!! How can you ban them?!



Not all Muslims are ISIS....I am sure that fact escaped you somewhere.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The Trump EO is not banning anybody based on religion.

The "religion" thing is just coincidence.

War and Terrorism are happening in those countries.



Then why isn't Columbia on the list? How about the UK?

UK nationals have more terror convictions in the US than people from the Sudan or Libya.



Nice and we'd like to keep it that way despite what the activists want.

Why don't you try to find the answers for yourself?

In ATS the river doesn't come to you, you go to the river.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

ISIL is less "Muslim" than Westboro Baptist is Christian. They are extremist death-cult hiding behind a facade of religion. They suck in new recruits the same way any cult does: by providing (false) options to people who feel like they have none.

The fact that they couch their rhetoric in Islam is incidental. They'd use Madonna songs if they thought their target audience would respond better to her.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

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.



So ISIS en masse can get visa's?

Show me where he doesn't have that power.

Never mind. You can't, sorry to ask such an impossible task from you.



No, they can't. ISIS is a known terrorist organization. They are already on the list of people to not allow entry.

Impossible task?



Yeah, you heard me.

But ISIS is muslim!! How can you ban them?!



Not all Muslims are ISIS....I am sure that fact escaped you somewhere.



All isis is muslim and a group.

Getting bored, will take dogs out and walk them by the mosque.

They like to chew on the shoes left outside.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Put this on your list of things to watch.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The Trump EO is not banning anybody based on religion.

The "religion" thing is just coincidence.

War and Terrorism are happening in those countries.



Then why isn't Columbia on the list? How about the UK?

UK nationals have more terror convictions in the US than people from the Sudan or Libya.



Nice and we'd like to keep it that way despite what the activists want.

Why don't you try to find the answers for yourself?

In ATS the river doesn't come to you, you go to the river.



That made no sense.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

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.



So ISIS en masse can get visa's?

Show me where he doesn't have that power.

Never mind. You can't, sorry to ask such an impossible task from you.



No, they can't. ISIS is a known terrorist organization. They are already on the list of people to not allow entry.

Impossible task?



Yeah, you heard me.

But ISIS is muslim!! How can you ban them?!



Not all Muslims are ISIS....I am sure that fact escaped you somewhere.



All isis is muslim and a group.

Getting bored, will take dogs out and walk them by the mosque.

They like to chew on the shoes left outside.



Actually, all are probably not Muslim and definitely not devout Muslim. Many joined for promises of money to send back to their families.

You want to have your dog chew on people's shoes???



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: burgerbuddy

ISIL is less "Muslim" than Westboro Baptist is Christian. They are extremist death-cult hiding behind a facade of religion. They suck in new recruits the same way any cult does: by providing (false) options to people who feel like they have none.

The fact that they couch their rhetoric in Islam is incidental. They'd use Madonna songs if they thought their target audience would respond better to her.



Sure, and you know this, how?

Are you an ISIS?




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

never knew you were a constitutional lawyer


Don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to understand it.

Read it. Put your political biases aside and revel in the fact that you are protected from government tyranny based on religion.

Once you respect what freedoms you have, perhaps you will be kind enough to extend it to others.



Go and live among them, spread the word of freedom far and wide!

You missed your calling.

Oh, sorry, you can't do that.



That does not address what I said, or negate the fact that we have a government that is limited in it's powers.

Frankly, it's sad to see that so many of you lack the basic understanding of the principles this nation was founded upon and would throw them away so easily when you find an enemy that leaves you quivering in your little lady panties.

Do you want freedom or not? If you do, man up and stand for the freedom of others, which includes not allowing our government to take actions based on religiously-motivated intent and protecting those that you may disagree with.

If not, keep doing what you are doing. While you try to force over-reaching government actions, the rest of us will stand against you...the enemies of the American people.


edit on 15-3-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The Trump EO is not banning anybody based on religion.

The "religion" thing is just coincidence.

War and Terrorism are happening in those countries.



Then why isn't Columbia on the list? How about the UK?

UK nationals have more terror convictions in the US than people from the Sudan or Libya.



Nice and we'd like to keep it that way despite what the activists want.

Why don't you try to find the answers for yourself?

In ATS the river doesn't come to you, you go to the river.



Again, why is the UK not on the list, yet Sudan and Libya is?

I thought it was about the scary terrorists.

Hmm...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join