Can Anti-Trump So-Called Judges Stop ALL of His Major Projects?

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SBMcG

Even if it were a "Muslim ban", the President has absolute authority under the Constitution to ban ANY GROUP for any reason from entering this country. This judge in Hawaii is just the typical activist leftist subverting the Constitution.

That is true, even if the judge attempts to extend the constitution to people outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

OK -- I should have been more clear...

The president can ban NON-CITIZENS for any reason.

As you've correctly stated, the Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizens.

The fact that you mention this clearly denotes that you have not done your homework in regards to the constitution.

14th Amendment : “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Id say this gives illegal immigrants or non citizen more rights than in many countries.

Yeah, I have studied and MEMORIZED the Constitution for decades... You are not even close to interpreting that passage correctly.

Foreign non-citizens do not have Constitutional rights. period. Not one.

If they did, anyone could wake up one morning and come to this country no questions asked. 500 million Chinese? No problem. They have constitutional rights.

The Constitution is clear: the President has absolute power to limit or restrict the entry of any group of people for any reason.

Personally, a "Muslim ban" doesn't bother me. We have an "illegal alien" ban. We have a "criminal alien" ban.

Again -- when this gets to the Supreme Court, the America-hating Left will lose (again, lol).

You can choose to ignore the parts of the Constitution you do not agree with all you want, it does not make it less real.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner

The Trump Admin. refuses to grant the rules they are legally bound to follow any relevance.

Trump is following the Constitution to the letter.

The leftist judge is doing what all leftist judges do -- ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security.

Once Trump's EO -- and I hope it's the first one, gets to the SCOTUS, it will be ruled constitutional and a lot of leftists are going to be left eating crow.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: odzeandennz

He must have put Mexico in quotes ["mexico"] i guess.
Let us know when Mexico sends the check, or when we start making cuts to fund the wall... either way.

Unfortunately that's not what he meant by getting Mexico to pay for it, which is apparent by the information made available on his website since the very beginning of his campaign. I guess mentalists should have read the information instead of assuming.

Yea, like when he was saying all during his campaign and on interviews, he was going have Mexico pay for it and added nothing more.
Are you sure you want to dig up the date some nonsense plan was patched up and put up on some website against the time he began saying Mexico is going to pay for it.

Let see how much Mexico will actually pay for the wall. If his health care replacement bill is any indication of how well thought out the " mexico paying for the wall" plan is, then we as a nation are going to look even more pathetic.

the man build an entire campaign on repealing the aca and building a wall and his cabinet and party member seem to think his replacement proposal is a little looney...

And how many times has he tried the travel "ban"?
How much more pathetic can one be, or his entire cabinet to not forsee how any judge would be able to block his travel "ban".

a reply to: SBMcG

Non citizens within the U.S. and it's territories are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as citizens are.

Read It.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: odzeandennz

He must have put Mexico in quotes ["mexico"] i guess.
Let us know when Mexico sends the check, or when we start making cuts to fund the wall... either way.

Unfortunately that's not what he meant by getting Mexico to pay for it, which is apparent by the information made available on his website since the very beginning of his campaign. I guess mentalists should have read the information instead of assuming.

He's no Patrick Jane, that's for sure.

He also must have missed all the speeches about extreme vetting on the trail.

The ACA? repeal and replace was the mantra for a while.

The stupid judges will get theirs. You watch.

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Milehigh

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SBMcG

Even if it were a "Muslim ban", the President has absolute authority under the Constitution to ban ANY GROUP for any reason from entering this country. This judge in Hawaii is just the typical activist leftist subverting the Constitution.

That is true, even if the judge attempts to extend the constitution to people outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

OK -- I should have been more clear...

The president can ban NON-CITIZENS for any reason.

As you've correctly stated, the Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizens.

The fact that you mention this clearly denotes that you have not done your homework in regards to the constitution.

14th Amendment : “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Id say this gives illegal immigrants or non citizen more rights than in many countries.

Yeah, I have studied and MEMORIZED the Constitution for decades... You are not even close to interpreting that passage correctly.

Foreign non-citizens do not have Constitutional rights. period. Not one.

If they did, anyone could wake up one morning and come to this country no questions asked. 500 million Chinese? No problem. They have constitutional rights.

The Constitution is clear: the President has absolute power to limit or restrict the entry of any group of people for any reason.

Personally, a "Muslim ban" doesn't bother me. We have an "illegal alien" ban. We have a "criminal alien" ban.

Again -- when this gets to the Supreme Court, the America-hating Left will lose (again, lol).

You can choose to ignore the parts of the Constitution you do not agree with all you want, it does not make it less real.

I'm not "ignoring" anything.

You are welcome to cite that portion of the Constitution that extends constitutional rights to foreign non-citizens.

Since you can't, here is the law granting President Trump absolute power to regulate immigration for any reason...

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

Non citizens within the U.S. and it's territories are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as citizens are.

Read It.

Mostly.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

Non citizens within the U.S. and it's territories are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as citizens are.

Read It.

Foreigners have some rights under the 14th Amendment, but not even close to rights of citizenship.

They can be deported for any reason by presidential order.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner

The Trump Admin. refuses to grant the rules they are legally bound to follow any relevance.

Trump is following the Constitution to the letter.

The leftist judge is doing what all leftist judges do -- ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security.

Once Trump's EO -- and I hope it's the first one, gets to the SCOTUS, it will be ruled constitutional and a lot of leftists are going to be left eating crow.

I guess trumps cabinet should go to you for constitutional advice. So even in a 'Right' cabinet, no one can devise a bill which can have immunity from those 'leftist' judges.

I mean your quote of article 1 section 8 clearly states the power of Congress over immigration... and yet here we are.

Between Trump and that judge, there can only be one div....
its the one at the top of the chain of command.

a reply to: SBMcG

I have this funky old outdated PAPER BOOK Constitution here, and that stuff you so skillfully copied and pasted ain't nowhere to be found there...

a reply to: SBMcG

Yeah, I'm not arguing that point.

I'm saying they are entitled to nearly the same, if not the same Constitutional protections a citizens.

Really though, it seems as if they actually have more protections than your average American sometimes, but that's a different subject entirely.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: carewemust

Here's a decent op-ed by neoconservative David Frum of the Atlantic on your very topic.

The Dangerous Precedent Set by Judicial Attacks on Trump's Travel Ban

Great link, thanks.

He was spot on. It is insanity and stupid what these idiots are doing.

a reply to: SBMcG

Ever heard of DUE PROCESS ?.

The guys at Guantanamo don't have the right to it because they were never on U.S. soil.

If they were here they would have a right to DUE PROCESS.

DUE PROCESS means they can't just be scooped up and deported without some kind of reason, if you ever went anywhere aside from here and trucked around a bit, you might actually understand what DUE PROCESS is.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I read the article, the guy doesn't know what the xuck he's talking about regarding this ban being attempted here.

What he talks about could not be much more unrelated to what we are discussing in this thread.

The Constitution doesn't apply in foreign countries and any dumb-ass would know that if they had half a brain.

It DOES apply here though.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

Ever heard of DUE PROCESS ?.

The guys at Guantanamo don't have the right to it because they were never on U.S. soil.

If they were here they would have a right to DUE PROCESS.

DUE PROCESS means they can't just be scooped up and deported without some kind of reason, if you ever went anywhere aside from here and trucked around a bit, you might actually understand what DUE PROCESS is.

And do YOU understand what "here" is as opposed to "there"?

What the hell are you arguing about anyway?

Ask Carter about Iranians.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

I have this funky old outdated PAPER BOOK Constitution here, and that stuff you so skillfully copied and pasted ain't nowhere to be found there...

LMAO!

OK, well, Article I, Sec. 8 grants Congress absolute power to regulate immigration. In 1952, under the auspices of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, Congress extended that authority to the president.

Section 212(f), states: "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."

tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz...

a reply to: SBMcG

1950s: McCarran-Walter Act, 1952

Not the Constitution....

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

Yeah, I'm not arguing that point.

I'm saying they are entitled to nearly the same, if not the same Constitutional protections a citizens.

Really though, it seems as if they actually have more protections than your average American sometimes, but that's a different subject entirely.

Wrong.

Non-citizens on US soil have rights as such under the 14th Amendment.

They do not have the rights the Constitution grants citizens.

They cannot be granted a US passport.

They cannot transit through the US without clearing customs as a foreign citizen.

They can be deported.

They cannot vote (except in California, evidently).

They cannot hold federal jobs.

They cannot run for Federal (and most state) public offices.

And there are other rights that are somewhat nebulous re: the 5th and 6th Amendment...

If foreigners had the same rights as citizens anyone could enter this country and we'd be overrun.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SBMcG

1950s: McCarran-Walter Act, 1952

Not the Constitution....

Jesus...

As I told you before, under Article I Congress has absolute power over immigration.

The 1952 Act extended that CONSTITUTIONAL grant of power to the President.

In this case, your president -- Donald J. Trump.

originally posted by: carewemust
March 13, 2017

With Federal Judges across the nation making up FAKE/WEAK reasons for defying President Trump's temporary travel bans, what else have WE THE PEOPLE given them to power to do?

Can an anti-American judge also suddenly stop Trump Wall from starting? Or halt it, during the process of being built, citing "Most Mexicans are Catholics" and labeling the wall a Catholic discrimination tool?

How about if the 300mph High-Speed Train crosses Indian Land? Forget the fact that Indians would financially benefit. A mentally unbalanced, lone-wolf anti-Trump Judge, could rule the rail line project as discriminatory to Indians, because they have spirit elders hovering in the vicinity.

Have we given Federal Judges so much power that they can literally do whatever they want? If so...how can we legally reduce their authority???

-CareWeMust

You equate a liberal court with being anti-American. More people voted against Trump than for him. So, that other percentage that supports a centrist SC...are they anti-American, too?