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.

 

Breaking: Trump travel ban going to Supreme Court!

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The choice for the Supreme Court is a pretty simple binary one.

1) campaign speech (and media misrepresentation and skewing of said speech), whether subsequently altered or walked back, directly determines the authority the President has after being elected.

2) it doesn't.



??????

That is not the question at all. How bizarre an assertion.

The President's authority is not in question.

His authority does not include violating the constitution of the United States.

The question is if the Executive Order violates the Constitution.

Being vacant of fact-based evidence the order would effect security, it is first and foremost unconstitutional as it is an arbitrary or irrational order.

It secondly violates the separation of powers between the federal government and states because it burdens the states economies and governance without any rational, evidence based justification.

It also violates the first amendment since the order's animus clearly is religious discrimination. That animus was publicly established by Trump and Surrogates both pre and post election (contrary to what you claimed)

It also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

It also violates the due process clause guaranteed under the 5th and 14th amendments.

The Supreme Courts ruling will be a thorough admonishment of the President.




edit on 2-6-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
This ban is discriminatory to Iranians. Trump hates Iran so much he bans anyone from Iran from entering. There are thousands of Iranians students who study at American universities, paid by the Iranian state, to steal military technology from America to Iran. True, this is unethical, but Iranians never attacked the US, never attacked the west, all they do is self defense from Saudi Arabia and Israel. Banning Iranians from entering would endanger the world because if Iran is attacked and cannot defend itself then the whole world can plunge into chaos. Trump is playing with fire and his stupid ban on Iran should be banned by the Supreme Court.


Stealing secrets used to get you a bullet to the head. Its IS a attack on America because the tech stolen is used against the US's interest. Iran can defend itself just fine.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Every bit of that is debatable. Thus, off we go to the Supreme Court.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

the Ban is not specific to a people from said countries. it includes all,and if fairly enforced.
The ban does not specify a relgion either.
If you are not a US citizen,or related to one or married to one Outside the US you are not protected by it unless on US soil in a embassy or Base.
And Due process is another part that does not cover you if you are in a non us country and not a american citizen. You have to be in US borders or on US Soil to be protected.

This is where Trumps SC pick is going to earn his money and pay back trump.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Indigo5

the Ban is not specific to a people from said countries. it includes all,and if fairly enforced.
The ban does not specify a relgion either.


Animus is a real thing, more so in an arbitrary or irrational EO that lacks any evidentiary support for it's purported aim.
In interviews, on twitter...multiple Trump aides and Trump himself have described this as an EO meant to effect a "Muslim" ban.



This is where Trumps SC pick is going to earn his money and pay back trump.


Having read a great deal about Justice Gorsuch and his legal thinking, I think the way he rules will be a massive embarrassment to Trump.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Sillyolme

Sadly we all know how full of crappola the liberal judges are and the agenda behind stopping the ban.

Still this will side with the constitution and the rights of the president to impose existing laws on immigration and national security.

I will wait and see.



That's what I think is REALLY funny. People don't seem to realize that many of the laws are already in place and just weren't being enforced.

They also keep failing to see that this plan and the countries affected were initially proposed by the last administration.

Similar to the wall that people seem to blame Trump for .... it was already an Act passed by many, including Obama and Clinton way back when. It is just simply going to be enforced now and extensions added.

Ignorance is a funny thing...and seems very selective.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Trumps Sc pick is a by the letter Judge. So well see.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Indigo5

Trumps Sc pick is a by the letter Judge. So well see.


He is also a HUGE legal proponent on separation of powers.

Seeing how Trump has treated the judiciary and Gorsuch's passion to preserve the SCOTUS power in the checks and balances, plus a chip on shoulder to prove to the world his independence after being appointed after such a controversial process and president?

Gorsuch has a dozen reasons to rule against Trump and he is appointed for life. No loyalty pledge required..

Hell...I am more certain on how Gorsuch will rule than most other justices on the court.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Sillyolme

Sadly we all know how full of crappola the liberal judges are and the agenda behind stopping the ban.

Still this will side with the constitution and the rights of the president to impose existing laws on immigration and national security.

I will wait and see.



They also keep failing to see that this plan and the countries affected were initially proposed by the last administration.



the last administration did not ban travel from those countries.

And it was a broad list of countries that included the ones the BAN specifies.


What the last administration did was suspend Visa Waivers and require travelers to have a VISA, whereas before they could travel for 90 days without one.


Ignorance is a funny thing...and seems very selective.


We agree there...lol



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Indigo5

Every bit of that is debatable. Thus, off we go to the Supreme Court.



Sure...everything is debatable, but a half dozen federal judges/courts...both conservative and liberal have suspended and continued the suspension of the order despite the Administrations best arguments. what does that tell you?

Thinking about it, the SCOTUS might not even take the case up.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: whywhynot

Shia never killed anyone except to make them leave their land. Shia never did a suicide bomb attack in the west, ever.


Cheap words blowing in the wind across a vacant field. The world knows the truth.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BestOf

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: EternalShadow

These things don't just happen overnight and this is a very important security issue.


Well if this is such an important/urgent security issue, why hasn't Trump done anything to fix it?

That the whole point!

His ban was "supposedly" intended to be temporary while they studied and fixed the vetting process.

Who is in charge of that review?

What have they discovered, proposed and/or accomplished, with respect to addressing this important/urgent security issue?

How much more time do they need?

If the original travel ban had been allowed to go into effect, what course of action would team Trump be proposing at this point in time? An extension? Permanence?

Etc...etc...etc..

I'm confident that for Trump & his minions, the way to fix our vetting process is quite simple.

Just add the sentence;
"All Muslim applicants shall be denied entry."

Now, let's see how the Supreme Court Justices feel about that approach.


The Hawaii injunction prevents President Trump from doing all things related to the EO. That includes restricting travel to the US, conducting studies to determine the effectiveness of of the origin countries screening procedures, and implementing any changes in the vetting procedures of these origin countries.

While I initially believed President Trump should ignore the injunction the same as Hussian Obama ignored the Texas district courts injunction on his dreamer program, it seems President Trump has made all the right moves.

See, most don't know that President Trump insisted that the son in law of one of the 4th circuit judges argue the case for the administration. Thus, this conservative judge had to recuse himself from an already liberal bench. Any chance of the 4th circuit overturning the injunction was lost before the case began.

It seems that President Trump intended for this case to be heard before the Supreme Court. I imagine he is eager to have his arguments heard before a stacked court able to set a federal precedent allowing the presidemt to ban any country's citizens at any time.


Interesting, thanks for sharing that.

The petition quotes a 1950 Supreme Court case saying, “‘The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty’ that lies in the ‘legislative power’ and also ‘is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.’

Maybe I have no idea how the country operates, but should a left wing lowlife judge who get NO intelligence or security briefings have more power than the POTUS?



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: BestOf

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: EternalShadow

These things don't just happen overnight and this is a very important security issue.


Well if this is such an important/urgent security issue, why hasn't Trump done anything to fix it?

That the whole point!

His ban was "supposedly" intended to be temporary while they studied and fixed the vetting process.

Who is in charge of that review?

What have they discovered, proposed and/or accomplished, with respect to addressing this important/urgent security issue?

How much more time do they need?

If the original travel ban had been allowed to go into effect, what course of action would team Trump be proposing at this point in time? An extension? Permanence?

Etc...etc...etc..

I'm confident that for Trump & his minions, the way to fix our vetting process is quite simple.

Just add the sentence;
"All Muslim applicants shall be denied entry."

Now, let's see how the Supreme Court Justices feel about that approach.


The Hawaii injunction prevents President Trump from doing all things related to the EO. That includes restricting travel to the US, conducting studies to determine the effectiveness of of the origin countries screening procedures, and implementing any changes in the vetting procedures of these origin countries.

While I initially believed President Trump should ignore the injunction the same as Hussian Obama ignored the Texas district courts injunction on his dreamer program, it seems President Trump has made all the right moves.

See, most don't know that President Trump insisted that the son in law of one of the 4th circuit judges argue the case for the administration. Thus, this conservative judge had to recuse himself from an already liberal bench. Any chance of the 4th circuit overturning the injunction was lost before the case began.

It seems that President Trump intended for this case to be heard before the Supreme Court. I imagine he is eager to have his arguments heard before a stacked court able to set a federal precedent allowing the presidemt to ban any country's citizens at any time.


Interesting, thanks for sharing that.

The petition quotes a 1950 Supreme Court case saying, “‘The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty’ that lies in the ‘legislative power’ and also ‘is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.’

Maybe I have no idea how the country operates, but should a left wing lowlife judge who get NO intelligence or security briefings have more power than the POTUS?


Well that ruling was before the 1965 Act that amended the 1950s Act, so there is more to consider than the precedent alone. It's a big decision - one that has major ramifications on the power within the Executive Branch.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: allsee4eye
This ban is discriminatory to Iranians. Trump hates Iran so much he bans anyone from Iran from entering. There are thousands of Iranians students who study at American universities, paid by the Iranian state, to steal military technology from America to Iran. True, this is unethical, but Iranians never attacked the US, never attacked the west, all they do is self defense from Saudi Arabia and Israel. Banning Iranians from entering would endanger the world because if Iran is attacked and cannot defend itself then the whole world can plunge into chaos. Trump is playing with fire and his stupid ban on Iran should be banned by the Supreme Court.




Defensive only? BS! Iran is the world's largest exporter of terror. I don't normally quote Huff but in this case I'll make an exception.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


I'm going to remember to cite this post each and every time some snowflake gets bent out of shape over "fake news."

Lol, you guys don't give a # about "fake news," until it fits your narrative.

If Huffington Post real, or fake, news?


I purposely used Huff to make my point because it is lefty news. I wanted to preemptively disarm the argument that the info regarding Iran being the worlds largest suppier of terror was not accurate based on it coming from Fox or some other less than liberal rag. This fact that Iran is the worlds largest supporter of terror is all over the Internet reported in news sources of all political persuasions. So, sorry for your failed hyper political assumptions



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
His authority does not include violating the constitution of the United States.

The question is if the Executive Order violates the Constitution.



Not only the Constitution, but the law of the land as well. Our founding fathers meant for the constitution to be changeable and to be built on law - so (technically) forbidding women to vote is not against the Constitution (otherwise we would have been able to vote since the first election) but it IS against the law of the land.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It's kinda sad that you're better informed on US laws and legislative system than some Americans are.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tinymind

A) The two incidents (underwear and shoe bombers) to which you refer weren't attacks; they were attempted attacks.

B) The "underwear bomber" is from Nigeria, and was traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit. Should we ban all people and flights from Amsterdam?

C) The "shoe bomber" is from Britain, and was flying from Paris, France. Should we ban all flights or all people from flying from France?

Maybe we should just ban ALL international air travel into the US, since extremists are everywhere.

That said, the domestic terror attacks (or attempts) in the US since 9/11 have all been carried by either citizens or legal immigrants/residents and none (except for a couple) involved anyone from the six (6) countries on Trump's list.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Wow. My handle got jacked. Shilltastic



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Trump should easily win this.

"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."



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Trump should easily win this.

"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."


There is a section of the 1965 Act that challenges this - though not directly. The above remains, and is not referenced as being amended in the 65 Act, as all other changes are, so it is certainly still in force. However, the 65 Act specifically mentions discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and nationality. The Supreme Court will have to decide how both the statement in the 52 Act and the 65 Act play against each other. Tough one.
edit on 2/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join