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.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: howtonhawky
You can not ban people for their nationality!
President Trump did and the SCOTUS backed his position.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: face23785
I imagine if the sole determinant of whether someone was detriment was whether they belonged to a protected class (religion, race, etc) then they would be found Unconstitutional. Otherwise I agree.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: howtonhawky
You can not ban people for their nationality!
Actually, you can. Obama did it, and so did Trump.
Nationality is not a protected class.
You asked, I answered, and you said I was wrong, but you are, and you're "just getting up to speed". Your arguments are based on faulty information. People more familiar with the issue than you are telling you what happened, and you're arguing from a position of ignorance. You seem triggered by being told you're wrong, even when you admit you're poorly informed. You're wrong.
Does this sound like they're not ruling on the constitutionality of the order? You know the First Amendment is part of the Constitution right? Or are you gonna pretend you don't know that either so you don't have to utter those humbling words "I was wrong"?
ETA: and no one was busting your balls for asking a question. I'm busting your balls for asking a question, not liking the answer, and arguing for the sake of arguing even when, by your own admission, you're not informed enough on this issue to do so. You can't be told anything by anyone. Sorry to bruise your little ego.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: introvert
Just because the president has the authority, does not mean it was/is constitutional.
Actually it does. By definition the President can not have the authority to do something that is Unconstitutional.
originally posted by: introvert
Just because a president has the authority to do something, does not mean that anything he does in regards to that authority is automatically constitutional.
There is some truth to that.
You can discriminate, but not against everyone. In this case his actual policy was judged Constitutional. Nationality is not a protected class.
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: howtonhawky
You can not ban people for their nationality!
President Trump did and the SCOTUS backed his position.
Only in your dreams.
The ban covers people that could not be verified in certain countries.
It is not a ban on countries.
Denial of what? We are discussing the issue and I am asking questions to get the specific details.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert
Denial of what? We are discussing the issue and I am asking questions to get the specific details.
I am wondering, assuming you are serious, if you can understand the details. In the hopes that perhaps you are serious, here is the truth one more time:
The President has no authority whatsoever except that granted by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, under the Constitution, is charged with deciding constitutionality issues. That is the extent of their authority under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court just heard legal arguments about the constitutionality of the last travel ban from Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court determined that the travel ban is within the constitutional powers of the President.
The Supreme Court will not, does not, cannot legally decide whether it is a good ban or a bad ban... that is not their place. That is for the President and/or Congress to decide.
The travel ban is now law, and cannot be re-challenged in court as to its constitutionality. Individuals may bring cases to a lower court, but they cannot argue, and lower courts cannot rule, that the travel ban is not constitutional or exceeds the President's authority.
If the President comes out with a different travel ban, it may be challenged as well, but that challenge will take place under the assumption that this particular ban is constitutional.
That has been explained to you over and over, by several posters including myself. Yet you keep asking the same old questions time and again, in direct opposition to what you were told. If you want knowledge, fine; I posted it above. If you just want to make up wild semantic arguments that mean less than nothing, then go argue with a law professor.
And please quit trying to project your characteristics on to me. That is childish.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert
Having read the decision, I have a correction to what I said eariler. The Court ruled that Trump was within the authority granted to him in 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the country.
Also, as someone pointed out, SCOTUS ruled that the President didn't violate the establishment clause with his EO.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: face23785
Right, but the statement about the establishment clause addresses one of the specific arguments.
The main point of the decision is that Trump has the power to suspend under laws passed by Congress (noted above.)