Trump’s Travel Ban, another bigoted dismal failure

The Wokest said:
No on the face of it it does give the president the power to say "no more Jews". There would be constitutional challenges. It is an insanely broad law that needs to be modified, delegating too Mitch authority to the president. If people honestly need to be banned from a country I funny see went congress shouldn't have to approve it.
Click to expand...

No it does not and even the SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't a No Muslims!!! policy like people tried to paint it. They were countries of concern.
 
Kacper said:
No it does not and even the SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't a No Muslims!!! policy like people tried to paint it. They were countries of concern.
Click to expand...

I mean if there was no constitution then this phrase definitely would give the president that power:

>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, >suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

It is ridiculously broad honestly... I don't know what congress was thinking delegating that much authority to the president. Perhaps, "detrimental to the interests of the United States" will be interpreted using rational scrutiny - i.e. if the order is not legally insane. So basically, they can provide any flimsy reason and the courts have to approve. Or perhaps the president could be given the power to establish a temporary emergency ban using a purely rational justification, 90 days or so, after which congressional approval would be required. That would give the president the power to deal with emergency situations quickly, while still preserving the right of congress to smack him down if he's overreaching.

The president doesn't need the authority to permanently ban any class of people for any reason. I just think this should have to go through congress first.

I think a modern court probably would rule against a straight up Muslim ban still, using constitutional reasoning, even though by the straight wording of the law it would be allowed. But the statute leaves the courts with little room if an EO is facially race neutral. You have to go back to the intentions, which is much more difficult to prove in a court of law. A really conservative justice like Thomas would probably still approve of a literal Muslim ban honestly, but it would be easier to sway Roberts and Kennedy in that case.
 
Last edited:
Dark Soul said:
Either you want desirables or you want undesirables, so which is is?
Click to expand...

I was using "undesirable" ironically bro. Totalitarian regimes often label classes of people, like Jews, as undesirable to give them a pretext for ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Even Hillbag didn't want undesirables, although she called us deplorables.
Click to expand...

You are deplorable, but you are deplorable Americans. :)
 
The Wokest said:
I mean if there was no constitution then this phrase definitely would give the president that power:

>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, >suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

It is ridiculously broad honestly... I don't know what congress was thinking delegating that much authority to the president. Perhaps, "detrimental to the interests of the United States" will be interpreted using rational scrutiny - i.e. if the order is not legally insane. So basically, they can provide any flimsy reason and the courts have to approve. Or perhaps the president could be given the power to establish a temporary emergency ban using a purely rational justification, 90 days or so, after which congressional approval would be required. That would give the president the power to deal with emergency situations quickly, while still preserving the right of congress to smack him down if he's overreaching.

The president doesn't need the authority to permanently ban any class of people for any reason. I just think this should have to go through congress first.

I think a modern court probably would rule against a straight up Muslim ban still, using constitutional reasoning, even though by the straight wording of the law it would be allowed. But the statute leaves the courts with little room if an EO is facially race neutral. You have to go back to the intentions, which is much more difficult to prove in a court of law. A really conservative justice like Thomas would probably still approve of a literal Muslim ban honestly, but it would be easier to sway Roberts and Kennedy in that case.
Click to expand...

People not present in the US and not US citizens only get the legal protections Congress chooses to give them. I am not sure why you think the whole world has some Constitutional right. That has never been the case. Our constitution doesn't even apply to them unless they are inside the US.
 
BuckTard's prediction on 05-27-2017, 11:45 AM appears to be wrong as usual. :rofl2:

It is only a matter of time before a vast majority of Americans see what liars the Democratic Party of the Jackass and FAKE media really are.
 
what incarnation of trumpy ban of Muslims was this thread about?


trump had to rewrite it a few times huh assbhole
 
evince said:
what incarnation of trumpy ban of Muslims was this thread about?


trump had to rewrite it a few times huh assbhole
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think this was at least his third iteration. And I notice the Chief Justice stated that they had to put aside the anti-Muslim comments that Trump has made in the past to come to their decision. Probably the right thing to do, but that statement in itself recognizes Trump for what he is.
 
The Wokest said:
I was using "undesirable" ironically bro. Totalitarian regimes often label classes of people, like Jews, as undesirable to give them a pretext for ethnic cleansing and genocide.



You are deplorable, but you are deplorable Americans. :)
Click to expand...

Try being precise in your choice of language instead of dog whistling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top