Poor Trump... keeps losing!

anatta said:
They are viewing the 'intent' as more weighed then the plain written text.
That's a devious construction- without merit- as are fixated on that one statement ,
instead of the various clarifications -it's for politics
Click to expand...

I am not even sure what your clucking, scratches and grunts mean, but I will try to respond..

According to SC precedent they MUST look at intent and there is a long list of precedent supporting looking beyond facial neutrality.
 
Jarod said:
Oversimplification. The objective can be considered for several reasons.

A law can be unconstitutional on its face, or as applied. The objective must be a legitimate government interest, and rhetoric can be evaluated to consider the true, rather than stated, goal.
Click to expand...

You're the lawyer, but that is not how I understand it. On its face means it is plainly unconstitutional, as applied, means, on its face it is constitutional, however, as "applied" it works out to be unconstitutional. I thought intent or rhetoric went to ambiguity.

Please provide a cite for your claim.
 
Jarod said:
The rhetoric can be considered when evaluating if the stated objective is legitimate or not. The ban can have several effects, and if its determined by the judge that the primary goal was to exclude a specific religion, it is then likely to be considered unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Cite?
 
Yaya said:
You're the lawyer, but that is not how I understand it. On its face means it is plainly unconstitutional, as applied, means, on its face it is constitutional, however, as "applied" it works out to be unconstitutional. I thought intent or rhetoric went to ambiguity.

Please provide a cite for your claim.
Click to expand...

My points are simply general principals of what a court will consider, I don't have time or desire to look up cites to something so basic. Look Lemon v. Kurtzman its likely in there.
 
Yaya said:
Doesn't matter what he intended, if, the actual order does not violate the constitution, Dick.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you are wrong. There are several cases that show that facial neutrality alone is not sufficient.

Hialeah City vs Church of Bobalu (or whatever)
Walz v Tax Commission NYC
Gillette v. United States
 
Dick from the Internet said:
I am not even sure what your clucking, scratches and grunts mean, but I will try to respond..

According to SC precedent they MUST look at intent and there is a long list of precedent supporting looking beyond facial neutrality.
Click to expand...
repetative.
I have not read the decision - but their look at intent is devious if they are not looking at the various updates/clarifications since that 1 statement.

They are making judgements on the effectivity of travel ban also -which is not their call.

They are really not addressing the statutory executive power either.
 
Jarod said:
My points are simply general principals of what a court will consider, I don't have time or desire to look up cites to something so basic. Look Lemon v. Kurtzman its likely in there.
Click to expand...

Is is in Lemon v. Kutzman, page 613
 
Jarod said:
This guy can't seem to catch a break. Travel ban 2.0 went down in flames today, The Obamacare replacement he backed went down in flames. It be clean clear even to the most dense among us that he lied about the wiretapping claims. He's losing so much, I'm starting to get tired of watching him loose..
Click to expand...

Sort of jumping the gun there son.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/09/illegal-immigration-from-mexico-down-40-percent-in-trumps-first-month/

Down 40% is a big win.

I do think Trump is making 1 significant mistake with the travel ban.

We don't need a travel ban - we need a long term hold on ALL immigration.

That would blow any legal opposition to the travel ban out of the water.
 
Jarod said:
This guy can't seem to catch a break. Travel ban 2.0 went down in flames today, The Obamacare replacement he backed went down in flames. It be clean clear even to the most dense among us that he lied about the wiretapping claims. He's losing so much, I'm starting to get tired of watching him loose..
Click to expand...

So was the court right or wrong in your opinion?

You said the second EO passed constitutional muster

So you must have been wrong and you claim to be a constitutional expert being a lawyer and all
 
anatta said:
repetative.
I have not read the decision - but their look at intent is devious if they are not looking at the various updates/clarifications since that 1 statement.

They are making judgements on the effectivity of travel ban also -which is not their call.

They are really not addressing the statutory executive power either.
Click to expand...

This get's repetitive because you are fucking stupid and continue to make the same inaccurate claims.

There is nothing devious about it, they are required to consider intent.
 
I Love America said:
So was the court right or wrong in your opinion?

You said the second EO passed constitutional muster

So you must have been wrong and you claim to be a constitutional expert being a lawyer and all
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be a Constitutional expert.

I believe the second EO will likely ultimately pass Constitutional Muster at the S.Ct..
 
Jarod said:
My points are simply general principals of what a court will consider, I don't have time or desire to look up cites to something so basic. Look Lemon v. Kurtzman its likely in there.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Lemon did help, but when considering the intent of the statute, they looked at the wording of the statute, not the rhetoric of the legislators. In fact, rhetoric could not be found at all.

When you have time, I would like to know more about this. And for you to properly back up your claim.
 
Jarod said:
Is is in Lemon v. Kutzman, page 613
Click to expand...
finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

Inquiry into the legislative purposes of the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes affords no basis for a conclusion that the legislative intent was to advance religion. On the contrary, the statutes themselves clearly state that they are intended to enhance the quality of the secular education in all schools covered by the compulsory attendance laws. There is no reason to believe the legislatures meant anything else. A State always has a legitimate concern for maintaining minimum standards in all schools it allows to operate. As in Allen, we find nothing here that undermines the stated legislative intent; it must therefore be accorded appropriate deference.

In Allen, the Court acknowledged that secular and religious teachings were not necessarily so intertwined that secular textbooks furnished to students by the State were, in fact, instrumental in the teaching of religion. 392 U.S. at 248. The legislatures of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania have concluded that secular and religious education are identifiable and separable. In the abstract, we have no quarrel with this conclusion.

The two legislatures, however, have also recognized that church-related elementary and secondary schools have a significant religious mission, and that a substantial portion of their activities is religiously oriented. They have therefore sought to create statutory restrictions designed to guarantee the separation between secular and religious educational functions, and to ensure that State financial aid supports only the former. All these provisions are precautions taken in candid recognition that these programs approached, even if they did not intrude upon, the forbidden areas under the Religion Clauses. We need not decide whether these legislative precautions restrict the principal or primary effect of the programs to the point where they do not offend the Religion
Click to expand...

Nothing about rhetoric, they refer to the actual statute when they determined intent.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Sorry, you are wrong. There are several cases that show that facial neutrality alone is not sufficient.

Hialeah City vs Church of Bobalu (or whatever)
Walz v Tax Commission NYC
Gillette v. United States
Click to expand...

Where do those cases talk about what the legislation said as proof of what the legislation means? Cite the actual words.
 
Yaya said:
Nothing about rhetoric, they refer to the actual statute when they determined intent.
Click to expand...

No, you are narrowing what I said to specifically rhetoric, its a tactic you are using to try to confuse the issue, but its about looking at the purpose of the statute, not only what it says.
 
Yaya said:
Where do those cases talk about what the legislation said as proof of what the legislation means? Cite the actual words.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]We reject the contention advanced by the city, see Brief for Respondent 15, that our inquiry must end with the text of the laws at issue. Facial neutrality is not determinative. The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. The Clause "forbids subtle departures from neutrality," [/FONT]Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437, 452 (1971), and "covert suppression of particular religious beliefs," Bowen v. Roy, supra, at 703 (opinion of Burger, C. J.). Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality. The Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is masked as well as overt. "The Court must survey meticulously the circumstances of governmental categories to eliminate, as it were, religious gerrymanders." Walz v. Tax Comm'n of New York City, 397 U. S. 664, 696 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top