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.

 

US Supreme Court - 5 to 4 ruling - Trump travel ban stands

page: 11
45
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Dfairlite

Agreed, I will admit though, there were three little words in the last post to me that made my day: "We can't debate"

Of course we can't... debate requires an open mind and two way communication.

TheRedneck


That's another reason we cannot debate. You are not willing to be honest and present things in proper context.

Open two-way communication relies on trust, knowing the person you are talking to will be honest and not misrepresent what the other persons argument is in order to feel better about themselves, or feel like they "won" the debate.

Apparently, you are not that sort of person. Therefore, we cannot debate.




posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

What, in your opinion did the supreme court rule on? Trump's authority to do what?


His authority to enact a ban for the sake of national security.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

What, in your opinion did the supreme court rule on? Trump's authority to do what?


His authority to enact a ban for the sake of national security.



and the fact his EO is constitutional and did not violate the 1st amendment rights of people.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That was never in question. Try reading the majority opinion. Specifically, point 2. in the syllabus. It is long (a few pages) but covers extensively why this specific EO is not a constitutional violation.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


His authority to enact a ban for the sake of national security.

What documents did the Supreme Court use to verify this authority?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

What, in your opinion did the supreme court rule on? Trump's authority to do what?


His authority to enact a ban for the sake of national security.



and the fact his EO is constitutional and did not violate the 1st amendment rights of people.


True. I never disputed that.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

That was never in question. Try reading the majority opinion. Specifically, point 2. in the syllabus. It is long (a few pages) but covers extensively why this specific EO is not a constitutional violation.


I never claimed it was.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert


His authority to enact a ban for the sake of national security.

What documents did the Supreme Court use to verify this authority?

TheRedneck


I assume the constitution. Again, what is your point? I never disputed any of that.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


I assume the constitution.

Then you assume his authority came from the Constitution?

Good, you're right.* Now follow me, here... if the authority for his actions came from the Constitution, and his actions were within that rightful authority, does it not follow that his actions were constitutional?

That has been my point since my first response to you.

TheRedneck

* There were other Federal laws considered as well, such as 8 USC 1182(f) and 8 USC 1185(a), but those themselves derived their authority from the Constitution as well. All government authority originates with the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert


I assume the constitution.

Then you assume his authority came from the Constitution?

Good, you're right.* Now follow me, here... if the authority for his actions came from the Constitution, and his actions were within that rightful authority, does it not follow that his actions were constitutional?

That has been my point since my first response to you.

TheRedneck

* There were other Federal laws considered as well, such as 8 USC 1182(f) and 8 USC 1185(a), but those themselves derived their authority from the Constitution as well. All government authority originates with the Constitution.


You can only lead them to the water......



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Xcathdra


Sotomayor certainly for the record revealed her globalist ties with her "feelings" on the decision. Guess we can count on her to throw the Constitution out the window.


Not that we ever doubted it

edit on 27-6-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Xcathdra

its good to finally marginally get the supreme Court of the United States of America to finally agree with the president, it only took 2 years to get the travel restrictions lawful.

definitely helps to know the Constitution sworn to uphold in order to 'win' ...

I had an image in my mind when I read this of a kid eating a green persimmon or crab apple. Puckered up face and hard to talk, have to spit it out.

I have to say we need to impeach the others for repeatedly ignoring the COTUS for 'progressive' ideas that are not written in there like the laws for gun control in Cali.
edit on 28-6-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: DBCowboy

I guess they won't be welcome at the red hen.



I would sell that place to someone who makes the best offer and walk away if I owned it. Maybe you could remodel and rename, then send out flyers that state: "Under New Management". I would add another sign for when they walk in: "Love Thy Neighbor".



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Kinda dumb in the first place to call it a muslim ban.

One of the news stations featured the man who created the list the potus is choosing from.

Seemed like he has some sense.

I bet potus chooses the most left leaning person on the list.

Scotus cleared their calendar this week....


Well Kennedy was the most left leaning Conservative I can recall. Well then I guess it is "obla deeee obla daaah life goes on waaa, la la how the life goes on." Or is that "Kay sarra sarra, whatever will be, will be."



edit on 28-6-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   
All this.. ban.. no ban.. is it constitutional.. did Trump win? .. blahblah etc.

When the real question is.. why in the hell do we need this? Waste of time.. waste of effort. National security? What a joke.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

I find it amazing that the narrative was unconstitutionality until it was ruled constitutional, now it is changing to do we need it.

Human behavior is a fascinating subject.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



Good, you're right.* Now follow me, here... if the authority for his actions came from the Constitution, and his actions were within that rightful authority, does it not follow that his actions were constitutional?


Of course. I never disputed that either. My query was to find out whether the SCOTUS was hearing a case in regards to his authority, the specifics of the ban, or both.

As I stated earlier, just because they ruled on his authority, does not mean they ruled on the specifics of the ban itself. It appears they did and I asked to make sure I understood exactly what they was presented to them and what they ruled on.

Also, as I said, just because the president has the authority to take a specific action, does not automatically mean the specifics of his actions are constitutionally-compliant. If that were not true, there would be no reason to take it to the SCOTUS to begin with.

Honestly, I'm not sure what your point of contention is/was.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert


I assume the constitution.

Then you assume his authority came from the Constitution?

Good, you're right.* Now follow me, here... if the authority for his actions came from the Constitution, and his actions were within that rightful authority, does it not follow that his actions were constitutional?

That has been my point since my first response to you.

TheRedneck

* There were other Federal laws considered as well, such as 8 USC 1182(f) and 8 USC 1185(a), but those themselves derived their authority from the Constitution as well. All government authority originates with the Constitution.


You can only lead them to the water......


I'm not entirely sure Mr Neck even knows what he's trying to argue against.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fleabit

I find it amazing that the narrative was unconstitutionality until it was ruled constitutional, now it is changing to do we need it.

Human behavior is a fascinating subject.

TheRedneck


Agree - I remember all the lectures about the unconstitutionality of the travel ban by liberals who really didn't have the first clue. They are good at one thing though - swallowing their humiliations time and time again and carrying on and on and on and on... and on... with BS arguments.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Your wording sounded as though you were disputing it. Having proper authority is the same thing as being constitutional.

As to what this decision covered, it only covered the latest travel ban. It does not mean any of his future actions are necessarily legal, but it does establish a precedent that, once again, the President has broad authority when it comes to immigration. If Trump were to place a travel ban that specified that those from majority Muslin countries were prohibited, that would be unconstitutional according to the Establishment Clause... if he instituted a ban on only Muslim countries and on all (or almost all) Muslin countries, that could be interpreted as unconstitutional for the same reason. He would have to present convincing evidence that he was not targeting all Muslims and only Muslims.

The Supreme Court simply ruled what we had been saying all along: the travel ban was not in violation of the Establishment Clause because it did not target the majority of Muslim countries, targeted some non-Muslim countries, and based the targeting on non-religious criteria. Any statements he made off the cuff during the campaign are irrelevant.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
45
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join