Donald Trump ruled an outlaw for violating the First Amendment of the Constitution

a reply to: Shamrock6

I read both sides too, and it seems to me that the judge just decided that every person not in the US who potentially could (not has, could) apply to a US university is a potential generator or revenue that a university and state could sue over and that's part of how "standing" is decided in this case.

Not to mention the judge here has decided that he is more equipped than the president to decide questions of national security which is part of the reasoning behind issuing this EO in the first place. Now which of the two receives national security briefings?

If we are now allowing the judiciary to play DHS like this, don't you think that's a precedent that should be set by the SCOTUS at the least and not by some judge out of Washington or three judges on the west coast with an 80% overturn rate when their decisions get heard by SCOTUS?

a reply to: ketsuko

Bad argument. Public universities are never short of international students. Even if international students from those 7 countries are barred, they are immediately replaced by ones from other countries.

a reply to: masterofuniverse

Im more of an "inalienable rights".

Our right are not granted by the Constitution, they are granted by our creator. So we do not need a constitution to define our rights. In fact, the constitution merely tells the government what limits they have on action, which by proxy is meant to protect our rights.

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
a reply to: ketsuko

Bad argument. Public universities are never short of international students. Even if international students from those 7 countries are barred, they are immediately replaced by ones from other countries.

But that's how standing was decided. In order to hear a case, you need to argue that it has adversely impacted you in some manner. In Washington, the universities argued they were losing well-paying foreign students (oil money). This was part of their standing argument, so it seems that now states can argue based on potential revenue and that any student who could potentially become a student is now part of that potential revenue to argue standing on.

Technically, the US constitution applies to US citizens. That's it. That's what the founders had in mind. At the time, there were no foreigners in the US.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: masterofuniverse

Im more of an "inalienable rights".

Our right are not granted by the Constitution, they are granted by our creator. So we do not need a constitution to define our rights. In fact, the constitution merely tells the government what limits they have on action, which by proxy is meant to protect our rights.

They are, but the COTUS is what protects our rights in this country for its citizens.

By your argument, you just justified an endless war crusade. Almost all of the world, including the so-called free Western world of Europe, even Canada, does not protect our inalienable rights in the same way the COTUS does. If we are now recognizing and believing that every human being MUST have those, then the only practical solution to attempt is to try to conquer the world and enforce our COTUS on everyone, everywhere.

The alternative of bringing them all here is simply impractical.

And it's a weak excuse to say that some people don't want them. If you believe we all have them, then you believe everyone's rights ought to be protected whether they want them or not.

a reply to: ketsuko

Trump Administration lawyers were asked, over and over again, if they had any credible evidence of a "clear and present danger", or if they had issued an heightened terror threat alert, coming from these 7 countries. They weren't able to cite nor did they suggest they had any "Top Secret" or classified data that would cooperate the EO's wording, which was found unconstitutional.

a reply to: windword

No danger? How about this?

www.reddit.com...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

Trump Administration lawyers were asked, over and over again, if they had any credible evidence of a "clear and present danger", or if they had issued an heightened terror threat alert, coming from these 7 countries. They weren't able to cite nor did they suggest they had any "Top Secret" or classified data that would cooperate the EO's wording, which was found unconstitutional.

What happened in Europe isn't evidence that allowing in a lot of people we can't vet and whose home countries can't vet them isn't enough of a security threat?

No. That's right. The left always feels like it will never happen ... until it does, and then they blame something else. Or you will blame the admin for not keeping us safe from it or for making them mad enough to do it or some other equally stupid reason when it's revealed that they were embedded in the refugee stream that came in.

a reply to: windword

Are you brain dead? I understand the completely objective media ran with the "Muslim ban" headline, but I guess it's too much for any reasonable adult to be smarter than that. If it's a Muslim ban why on earth are Muslims still allowed in from other countries? I'm sure you're next argument will something stupid like, "What about Saudi Arabia, they have all the terrorists, and also Trump makes money there, and also that's bad!" Yes, just about every country has terrorists, especially in the middle east... the land of the religion of peace. Even with a strong vetting process, you can't stop them all. However, with NO vetting process you can't stop any of them. What do you suppose the vetting process is like in Syria? You think Assad is handing over records? Libya? That's Obama's Iraq, incase you haven't been paying attention. How about Somalia? Nope. To overturn this ban is effectively stating that you are in favor of accepting refugees from regions that actively sponsor terrorism without any vetting process whatsoever. I mean, that's the option, and that was Obama's stance and Hillary's.
I know liberals are kinda slow, but try to put aside all of the other dumb arguments too. Yes, we have domestic threats. That not actually a reason to invite more threats in. In reality, this travel ban actually makes more resources available to pursue domestic threats. Also, you don't get to pretend no one from any of these countries has done anything. They have. Does it matter if it's a handful out of thousands? No. No American life is worth risking in exchange for a non-citizens. I can't believe people with arguably fully developed minds still need basic critical thinking done for them. But, hey, they don't call you bleeding hearts for nothing!

Syria is a failed state having no functioning government that can vet refugees. DHS has no personnel on the ground in Syria. Many jihadists are undercover as refugees.

www.reddit.com...

There are 22 Arab countries and none of them want Syrian refugees. THEY know the danger. And so should Americans.

The constitution doesn't apply to them when they are on US soil? Am I reading this right? Lmao, come on man.

a reply to: ketsuko

No. That's right. The left always feels like it will never happen .

They know it can happen.

The reason they are allowing it to happen is because it fits their political agenda. That we saw with No fly no buy no gun.

A list that is made up of soley muslims.

Trump solution to Islamofasists is border control.

Trump haters solution to Islamofascists is gun control.

a reply to: FelisOrion

They have to pass US customs to be on US soil. Just by being in the airport does not mean they are on US soil.

Strictly speaking, only citizens have constitutional rights. When the founders drafted the constitution, there were no foreigners in the US. That's why only citizens have voting rights.

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
Technically, the US constitution applies to US citizens. That's it. That's what the founders had in mind. At the time, there were no foreigners in the US.

www.youtube.com...

WUT...

Strictly speaking, the word person mentioned in the constitution refers to an American citizen. The constitution applies to American citizens, not to anyone else.

a reply to: masterofuniverse

No and further there were people from all over the world in the US at the time of the Founding as well as the writing and signing of the Constitution.

a reply to: Kali74

There were no foreigners in the US at the time. The constitution applies to citizens. Each country does that.