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: 6
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

you are all over it today.

your reply is not at all understanding of the point i made.

You totally missed the point.

It is the equivalent of me trying to change the conversation to hunting or fishing.

Sure i could post hunting and fishing facts but they would have no merit here.

try again to understand the post.




posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   

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.


If that were the case, someone would have to challenge the law itself. If a President issued such an order, it is obviously in compliance with the law, as written. Right now, per the law and this ruling, the President has broad authority to limit whoever he wants. There are no restrictions placed on him by the law or by this SCOTUS ruling.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

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.


When did Obama ban someone's nationality?

Trump banned people who could not be vetted.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Focus people.

Words mean things.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
My proof is that people are still coming here from the "banned countries"?

What is your proof?



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



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.


I said you were wrong on a particular aspect that extends well beyond just this issue and I stand by that.



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"?


I never claimed they weren't. If I didn't make such a claim, why do I have to admit 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.


You actually didn't answer the question until that post. As for the other aspect, I still stand by what I said.

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.

If that were the case, we would not have any sort of ability to question any administration's actions through the courts.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   

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.


I should have been a bit more specific. See my last post for a better look at what I mean.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I think they actually listed Sh!thole as a definition for countries too in their ruling...



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



There is some truth to that.


That's all I was saying. I did not say Trump was wrong, didn't have the authority, or anything else negative towards his administration.



You can discriminate, but not against everyone. In this case his actual policy was judged Constitutional. Nationality is not a protected class.


I believe that is correct.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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.

You are incorrect.
For Iran and Syria it is.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   

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


I should have just left this to you, you handled it much more eloquently than I did.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   

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.



Correct. The establishment clause of...

The Constitution. Hence, the order is constitutional.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think Introvert's point may be that the President's authority to suspend the entry of aliens is based on 8 USC 1182 (f).

That is, Congress gave the President this particular authority.

That is part of the SCOTUS ruling.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
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.)



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

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.)


And the Court determines whether the laws, and by extension in this case the policy which relies on the law, are constitutional. That's the entire point of the SCOTUS. That's what they do. If either the law or the policy in question here violated the Constitution, the Court would have struck it down. In upholding it, they held that it is constitutional. There's no other way to look at it.



posted on Jun, 26 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You're preaching to the choir and I've been singin' for years.

The law was not challenged, President's Trump's actions under the law were. The decision is not about the constitutionality of the law but on Trump's actions.

Yes, there is another way to look at it ... the way the SCOTUS did. Have you read the decision? I have.

ED: SCOTUS reversed the finding of a lower court.
edit on 26-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




top topics



 
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join