Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.

I can accept that judgement, but others will not.

That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.

Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.

Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?

He changes his tune every 5 minute.

I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.

I can accept that judgement, but others will not.

That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.

Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.

Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?

He changes his tune every 5 minute.

I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.

Hopefully that Gov. Johnson.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.

I can accept that judgement, but others will not.

That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.

Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.

Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?

He changes his tune every 5 minute.

I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.

and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.

I can accept that judgement, but others will not.

That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.

Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.

well until it is decided by SCOTUS, it is, any and all laws whether sane or not are Constitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise. we may feel they are unconstitutional but we are not the deciders SCOTUS is.

just like I cannot own a Nuke and say its Constitutional since there are laws saying I cannot.

Quit while you're behind already. It doesn't take SCOTUS to kick this out. Any fed judge can and will do it. I'm sure the ACLU will have writs prepped and on standby, like the Minutemen of old.

If Trump becomes President, I'll be a thorn on his side... that's for sure.

 whembly wrote:

There are means to petition for waiver... but, they don't exactly look that easy.

They aren't meant to, because the US is meant to keep idiots out.

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.

I can accept that judgement, but others will not.

That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.

Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.

Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?

He changes his tune every 5 minute.

I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.

and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.

I would welcome a coup. We will have proven that we are not worthy of governing ourselves.
EDIT: I am going to quit posting on this thread for awhile. I feel I am about to lose my temper.

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.

I can accept that judgement, but others will not.

That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.

Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.

Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?

He changes his tune every 5 minute.

I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.

and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.

I would welcome a coup. We will have proven that we are not worthy of governing ourselves.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.

and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.

I would welcome a coup. We will have proven that we are not worthy of governing ourselves.
EDIT: I am going to quit posting on this thread for awhile. I feel I am about to lose my temper.

but we would be getting rid of Miley Cyrus, Rosie O'Donnell, Lena Dunham, Al Sharpton too name a few.

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.

I can accept that judgement, but others will not.

That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.

Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.

well until it is decided by SCOTUS, it is, any and all laws whether sane or not are Constitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise. we may feel they are unconstitutional but we are not the deciders SCOTUS is.

just like I cannot own a Nuke and say its Constitutional since there are laws saying I cannot.

Quit while you're behind already. It doesn't take SCOTUS to kick this out. Any fed judge can and will do it. I'm sure the ACLU will have writs prepped and on standby, like the Minutemen of old.

guess you never heard of appeals to a higher court? you know how most if not all cases end up in the Supreme court.

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.

and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.

I would welcome a coup. We will have proven that we are not worthy of governing ourselves.
EDIT: I am going to quit posting on this thread for awhile. I feel I am about to lose my temper.

but we would be getting rid of Miley Cyrus, Rosie O'Donnell, Lena Dunham, Al Sharpton too name a few.

I'll take Miley. She breaks the fun/crazy scale. The rest can go to Alberta, which is where Hope Goes to Die (tm)

SCOTUS decides roughly 80 cases per year. It is petitioned to hear around 7000. And those are only the rulings that it is petitioned for. To say "most if not all cases end up at the Supreme Court" would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you think it.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
SCOTUS decides roughly 80 cases per year. It is petitioned to hear around 7000. And those are only the rulings that it is petitioned for. To say "most if not all cases end up at the Supreme Court" would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you think it.

So what you are saying is that there is a better chance that SCOTUS will hear a case than there is of some people making a correct claim in this thread?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
SCOTUS decides roughly 80 cases per year. It is petitioned to hear around 7000. And those are only the rulings that it is petitioned for. To say "most if not all cases end up at the Supreme Court" would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you think it.

meant most if not all cases that appear in the Supreme Court are from Appeals to a higher court.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Trump is making things more interesting this time around.

Have you read the NYT article about their trouble adhering to the Fairness Doctrine because they cover everything Trump does and HRC avoids press conferences and debates? Trump is owning the media spotlight for good or ill.

Not to be pedantic, but do you mean the equal time rule? Fairness doctrine is gone. I haven't seen the article in question so I'm not sure.

edit: nm, I think I found the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/business/media/television-networks-struggle-to-provide-equal-airtime-in-the-era-of-trump.html

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

dethork wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's in section (f) of:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).

Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.

Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?

It's hard to find an actual quote, but: "Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told The Associated Press that the proposal would apply to "everybody," including both Muslim tourists and those seeking immigration visas." (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-muslim-immigrants-2015-12)

I'm sure he's backed off some from the nomination-geared hyperbole, but even the more extreme position seems to apply only to those applying for visas - i.e., non-Citizens.

The big issue is going to be consular non-reviewability. Generally the judicial branch will not challenge the consular officer's decision. They could pretty much just say "all Muslims are potential terrorists until proven otherwise" in the same way that they currently assume every Southeast Asian woman is committing marriage fraud until she proves otherwise. When the person comes in for their visa interview the consular officer could ask them questions until they slip up somehow.

There might be some ancillary info in the Kerry vs Din case: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1402_e29g.pdf
For the most part, it sounds like the Supreme Court is upholding their decision not to review consular decisions. Furthermore, it seems from that decision that denying a visa is not depriving anyone of life, property, or liberty (not taken or imprisoned) nor is it denying due process. Unless there are more recent decisions (since June 2015) regarding consular non-reviewability (and there could be, I am not a lawyer) any declaration that denying visas is unconstitutional is asinine.

PS - lest someone wishes to label me a bigot, I am not being flippant about this. I have a lot to lose personally if such a law were to come into effect and how broadly it is applied. This is why I know about immigration law as much as I do. (And every time I have to deal with the system I find out how little I actually know.)

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Right or Wrong it is the law. and until it is changed it is an option.

Now we know why the Clinton campaign are crappy bricks now, as their own internal polling must have shown this:

Reid J. EpsteinVerified account
‏@reidepstein
WSJ/NBC/Marist California poll

Hillary 49
Bernie 47

Ya'll ready for a nail biter?

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You're wrong, the President has that power:
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182

“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.”

You are right that it would be bigoted.

surprised such a law exists now a days, can see a reason for its implementation like keeping out all ISIS members but on a broad stroke of an entire religion?

 Spinner wrote:
No. The distinction is that you're the only one, including Donald Trump, talking about self-defense. Or framing the answer that way, anyway. Like I said, I think the lack of an answer to the question answers it pretty solidly.

And I'd say Catholicism is pretty firmly Christian...seems to tick all the boxes from an outside viewpoint like mine...but all Muslims are Muslims, right? We can break Christianity down into fifty different branches without a sweat, just can't tell those gosh-darn extremists apart from the rest.

and you ignore everything I said, lets see I said there are peaceful Muslims and there are Extremist Muslims not counting all factions in between, furthermore I said if that kid picks up a gun with a desire to kill non-ISIS people, then yes he is a terrorist in my books and should be stopped.

I'm not asking that. The question is, and always has been, whether or not you are okay with retributive killings of noncombatants related to ISIS fighters. Not a child soldier, just a child. Donald Trump is, apparently, and I find that monstrous.

 Spinner wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You're wrong, the President has that power:
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182

“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.”

You are right that it would be bigoted.

surprised such a law exists now a days, can see a reason for its implementation like keeping out all ISIS members but on a broad stroke of an entire religion?

 Spinner wrote:
No. The distinction is that you're the only one, including Donald Trump, talking about self-defense. Or framing the answer that way, anyway. Like I said, I think the lack of an answer to the question answers it pretty solidly.

And I'd say Catholicism is pretty firmly Christian...seems to tick all the boxes from an outside viewpoint like mine...but all Muslims are Muslims, right? We can break Christianity down into fifty different branches without a sweat, just can't tell those gosh-darn extremists apart from the rest.

and you ignore everything I said, lets see I said there are peaceful Muslims and there are Extremist Muslims not counting all factions in between, furthermore I said if that kid picks up a gun with a desire to kill non-ISIS people, then yes he is a terrorist in my books and should be stopped.

I'm not asking that. The question is, and always has been, whether or not you are okay with retributive killings of noncombatants related to ISIS fighters. Not a child soldier, just a child. Donald Trump is, apparently, and I find that monstrous.

And I keep telling you there is no such thing as related Non-combatants when it comes to ISIS. if there was ISIS killed them already, as far as ISIS goes with family you are either helping them or you are dead.

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1st Amendment, the Muhammad Ali of Amendments, the Smokin Joe Frasier of proclaimations, the Sonny Liston of provisions, will take that out in three rounds.

That Assumes ACW amendments and the Civil Rights Acts they empower don't decide to jump in, and like Thomas at Nashville, go through it like gak through a goose.

Try it and watch the SCOTUS march in column to the Whitehouse and slap that circus clown all the way back to New York City.
And if he tries to resist, well that whole "enemies domestic" thing starts to rear its ugly head.
or in Trumpite parlance...The Constitution and SCOTUS were mean to him, just mean and unfair.

Dog I think I really hate that guy now.

None of that would happen because none of those amendments would apply just like they didn't apply when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Scott Act of 1888, The Geary Act in 1892, the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903, the Immigration Act of 1907, the Immigration Act of 1917, the Emergency Quota Law of 1921, the National Origins Act in 1924 and 1929, and the Internal Security Act of 1950.

None of those excluded a specific religion which violates the First Amendment. Note also Trump is note even saying he has a law.

ALL were before civil rights legislation and the new era where we actually decided to abide the Constitution.

Please show me the section of the Civil Roghts Act of 1964 that deals with federal immigration law and how it prevents Congress or PotUS from deciding who is allowed to immigrate to the USA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

dethork wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's in section (f) of:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).

Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.

Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?

How do non US citizens that haven't immigrated into the US yet get protection from the constitution? They aren't citizens and they aren't in the US. Immigration quotas and bans wouldn't stop US citizens and residents from having freedom of religion.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Please show me the section of the Civil Roghts Act of 1964 that deals with federal immigration law and how it prevents Congress or PotUS from deciding who is allowed to immigrate to the USA.

me thinks people think the Constitution of the United States refers to everyone in the world, it does not It only refers to citizens of the United States.

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

dethork wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's in section (f) of:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).

Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.

Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?

and thats the key phrase, the Constitution protects American Citizens, not the world, we carry no control over others in the world only on our own citizens.

Yes, but it's too bad Trump suggested keeping even American ctizens out, and in any case it would still still a bigoted, unenforceable law.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

dethork wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's in section (f) of:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).

Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.

Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?

and thats the key phrase, the Constitution protects American Citizens, not the world, we carry no control over others in the world only on our own citizens.

Yes, but it's too bad Trump suggested keeping even American ctizens out, and in any case it would still still a bigoted, unenforceable law.

he made no mention of American Citizens, only foreign citizens, and the law is very enforceable as shown above.

 whembly wrote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure

Yeah, and many wealthy people of that era thought that periodic war made for a good nation because if they or theirs had to serve it was usually from the back.

Guys... I think we're painting with a large brush here... I realize that the waters are muddied a bit, but simply looking at the 14th amendment in conjunction to 5th & 6th, non-citizen do benefit on many Constitutional protections, as they are "persons". (ie, due process / equal protection). But, that doesn't mean they're automatically citizens or get legal residency status just by "being here".

Also, it's easier to remember what non-citizens don't have under the US Constitution, such as they're prohibited to: default residency, vote, gun ownership, government jobs (some exceptions), etc....

Furthermore, anything related to immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not really criminal law. In most cases, immigration policies is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review, especially when Congress writes statutory laws.

Which is why it's interesting that the lower court ruled in favor of Texas in that DACA case... which, is now awaiting whether the Supreme Court would take this appeal.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure

Yeah, and many wealthy people of that era thought that periodic war made for a good nation because if they or theirs had to serve it was usually from the back.

nah they usually bought their way out of the draft, which was common practice during the Civil War.

The PGA just decided to move one of their tournaments hosted in Southern Fl at a Trump owned course. Its new location? Mexico City.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/golf/pga-tour-moves-tournament-from-miami-donald-trump-course--to-mexico/2016/06/01/0a625456-2838-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The PGA just decided to move one of their tournaments hosted in Southern Fl at a Trump owned course. Its new location? Mexico City.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/golf/pga-tour-moves-tournament-from-miami-donald-trump-course--to-mexico/2016/06/01/0a625456-2838-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html

Oh... buuuuuuuurn!!!!!!!!!!

To be fair, PGA is really TRYING to push the sport in South America... what a great way to spur interest.

Asterios wrote:
he made no mention of American Citizens, only foreign citizens, and the law is very enforceable as shown above.

He said "all Muslims". US citizens who are Muslim are very much part of that "all Muslims". Now he may have walked that back (I'm not sure), but until then it's unconstitutional.

And it very much is unenforceable.

TSA agent: "Sir, are you a Muslim?"

Muslim who wants to enter the US: "No."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The PGA just decided to move one of their tournaments hosted in Southern Fl at a Trump owned course. Its new location? Mexico City.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/golf/pga-tour-moves-tournament-from-miami-donald-trump-course--to-mexico/2016/06/01/0a625456-2838-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html

Oh... buuuuuuuurn!!!!!!!!!!

To be fair, PGA is really TRYING to push the sport in South America... what a great way to spur interest.

Trump, with his usual finesse, is blaming them for sending jobs to Mexico, but the reason they left is that they couldn't get sponsors because nobody wanted to be associated with Trump. It's beautiful.