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

Some people believe foreigners have constitutional rights. I happen to be an originalist and believes only citizens have constitutional rights.

classroom.synonym.com...

originally posted by: bender151
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!

See here's the problem the threat is minimal compared with the damage it causes mostly due to the press. But that aside for a minute the argument that few terrorists get through isn't really valid either. In life we take steps to mitigate risks it's how we survive. For example if I put 50000 jelly beans in front of you and I tell you I poisoned 2 of them and it will instantly kill you. Then I say pick 10 and eat them. The odds of you getting the poison would be less then dying in a car wreck. But the question becomes how many people would be willing to take the risk I know I'd pass.

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
Some people believe foreigners have constitutional rights. I happen to be an originalist and believes only citizens have constitutional rights.

classroom.synonym.com...

The constitution doesn't grant you any rights it protects you from the government infringing on them. So the rights do apply to all but the protections do not . To be granted the protections under the constitution you need to be a US citizen.

Jihadists are not only males. They are families. Males. Females. Adults. Children. They would not attack unless there are millions of them in the US. They have sleeper cells.

originally posted by: Kali74
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.

Yeah.

In 1801, President Jefferson sent the Navy to the Barbary Coast to stop Islamic pirates’ reign of terror on U.S. merchant ships. Jefferson read the Quran to understand what was motivating the pirates, and he learned that the Muslim holy book commanded the faithful to “plunder and enslave” non-Muslims. Read more at www.wnd.com...

n 1814, after Tripoli broke its truce and began attacking U.S. ships again, former President John Adams wrote Jefferson a letter advising that Islam’s founder and prophet was “a military fanatic.” In another writing, he condemned Islamic law as “contemptible.” Read more at www.wnd.com...

His son and future president, John Quincy Adams, went further, arguing that the essence of Islam is “violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.” He suggested the Quran’s commands to fight and conquer other lands “in the cause of Allah” were at odds with democracy, peace and the Judeo-Christian ethic on which America was founded. Read more at www.wnd.com...

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.

This nation has always been at odds with 'muslims'.

The first Amendment doesn't grant rights to ANYONE. Citizen nor non-citizen.

The first Amendment restricts what the Government can do.

originally posted by: neo96

Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction, asserting that the campaign vow to institute a "Muslim ban" violated the First Amendment.

That judge is an idiot.

It's not a muslim ban for effs sake.

It's a Muslim ban, because Trump asked Rudy how to frame the ban so it would ban Muslims without being obvious that it did. That's when they came up with the 7 nation scheme. This was only supposed to be "the start" of the program of banning Muslims. Other nations would be added later, once this ban was accepted.

a reply to: AMPTAH

The EO also made exceptions for religions that were not Muslim. Perhaps if that wasn't included the EO may have had a chance.

a reply to: Shamrock6

They don't hold dual citizenship either. Legal resident does not a dual citizen make.

Jaden

a reply to: neo96

This has what to do with anything I was discussing with the other dude?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

This has what to do with anything I was discussing with the other dude?

Unfortunately for them.

They're under a travel ban of their own.

a reply to: neo96

You don't do cryptic well...

What?

a reply to: bender151

Calm down there buddy! I'm only commenting on how the judges interpreted the EO to be unconstitutional in the way in which it was written. You don't want any president violating the US Constitution, do you?

If the Trump Administration had done their homework and learned how to write a legal EO on curbing immigration from certain areas, we wouldn't be here.

As a matter of fact, the Trump Administration is apparently working up a new, better and more constitutional version of the EO. Fingers crossed Trump wins with this new one, because for someone that's always winning, he seems to be on quite a losing streak!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: masterofuniverse

The Constitution of the United States limits what government can and cannot do, including the President.

From you link:

The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing laws that favour one religion over another.

The President, Donald Trump, violated the Constitution of United States in his Executive Order.

NUTS!!! Trump prohibited citizens from certain countries where terrorism and anti-Americanism is prevalent...Regardless of their religious affiliation...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: masterofuniverse

The judges ruling is not granting Constitutional protections to foreigners. Tje ruling applies to the EO. The EO is wriiten with a bias against a religion. The Constitution forbids writing laws with religious bias.

False. The EO was not written with a bias against a religion. If it had been it would have included other majority Muslim countries. The countries listed were selected by the Obama administration previously as security threats.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Section E of the EO also had an exception for those who were not Muslim.

originally posted by: masterofuniverse
www.bbc.com...

Personally, I don't think this argument holds. The US constitution only applies to US citizens or foreign citizens who are on US soil having passed US customs. Refugees are neither.

If the US constitution applies to foreigners, then might as well arrest the Saudi king for religious persecution.

WHO in your article Ruled President Donald Trump as an OUTLAW, as your thread title proclaims?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Section E of the EO also had an exception for those who were not Muslim.

Probably because they are a minority in a majority Muslim country.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Difference in treatment based on religion goes against the 1st Amendment.

Understand now?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

People from the seven countries are trying to get out, get away from ISIS or other terror groups as well as airstrikes or oppressive governments. The people fleeing are Muslim and Christian, the EO applies a ban on Muslims from the seven countries but not Christians. The Constitution forbids laws with religious bias.