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.

 Jihadin wrote:
Its like Trump is being cast as the downfall of the US of A. Like Road Warrior Downfall or something.........hhmmmm.....Road Warrior or Zombies...which be first

The first Zombies movie was White Zombie, 1932. Bela Legosi.

The first Road Warrior Movie was 1979. Mel Gibson.

Time to buy more ammo

 Spinner wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

It's the middle part that worries me. Do you or do you not believe that the families of terrorists should be targeted by armed forces, on the assumption that if they were not terrorists, they would be dead already?

if those family members are terrorists? yes. you should get out a little more and see how things are going down with ISIS since if you are a member of ISIS your family is an active member of ISIS or its your duty to kill them, ISIS has some very extreme views and such, there is no middle ground, you are part of them or an enemy, and all enemies must die.

See, but what Donald Trump said - and what I am asking about - isn't 'target family members who are also ISIS fighters' - it was just 'family members'. The implication was that it would be elderly Mom and Dad at home, or younger siblings; people who couldn't defend themselves or otherwise wouldn't be considered enemy combatants. A 'taste of their own medicine' sort of rhetoric. You don't have to single out the ISIS fighter's brother who is also a member of ISIS as a target. He already is one.

So is that something you would support? I'm asking because I would think that alone would be enough to turn off his supporters in droves, because holy crap that's a horrible, disgusting idea that solves nothing and drags us down to their level.

and you miss my point with ISIS there are no innocents at very(I mean very) young ages they are tought what to believe and how to kill the enemy.

The answer I'm getting here is "Yes, kill the kids, but I don't want to say it out loud."

Which says everything, really. I'm expecting a 'don't put words in my mouth' post right back at me, but if you want to say 'No, I do not believe in shooting the relatives of ISIS members unless they are active members of ISIS committing the atrocities that this horrible group of people is known for, as opposed to young children and elderly relatives of members of said terror group', you have every opportunity to do so.

I'd like to hear it, I really would.

And, what, Catholicism isn't a type of Christianity now? I have a roommate who would be very surprised to hear that.

if the kids go out killing people? yes they are terrorists in and of themselves, you keep thinking there is a distinction, a bullet from a kid can kill you just as well as a bullet from an adult.

and no the Catholic church is not Baptist, Protestant or any other number of other groups you seem to link all into Christianity, I consider the Catholic religion more of a hypocritical religion then some others, but not so far as the one Tom Cruise is in, I believe religion has its place but also think religion is the major cause of most atrocities committed from the ISIS terrorists to the Catholic Crusaders.

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.

maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.

Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.

I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.

Please, PLEASE not in the national election....:p

so you are calling me a racist cause I feel those who enter this country illegally should be stopped and kicked out? regardless of the fact I have no problem with those of any race who enter this country legally? but I am a racist? and that is why I am voting for Trump because I am tired of being labeled something I am not.

Trump has declared a moratorium on Muslims-legal or illegal - entering the US. Thats bigotted and screamingly unconstitutional-not just inferred constitution, not just the Bill of Rights, but the original Constitution. If he tried it thats a prima facae impeachable offense ON DAY ONE.

Also something about Mexicans...but he's sure some are good people.

Dammit Fraz... you owe me a beer.

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.

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.

 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.

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).

 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.

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.

The Constitution wipes its ass with the US code. In a "who has the biggest dick" contest, guess which one wins?

The law itself cannot contravene the Constitution, nor is it written to do so.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

The Constitution wipes its ass with the US code. In a "who has the biggest dick" contest, guess which one wins?

The law itself cannot contravene the Constitution, nor is it written to do so.

How does it contravene the Constitution?

And really... have you not paid attention the the Supreme Court rulings lately?

There is US code for many things that are unconstitutional, that doesn't make them constitutional. Just look at the flag code as a prime example, you can write all the laws you want, it's still unconstitutional to make it illegal to burn it. We can't go a week without bringing up Citizens United or the DOMA, so why are we pretending that "having a law" = "the law is constitutional"?

 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).

It seems that the terrorism prohibition in section 3 would already bar the entry of anyone who is an ISIS member or is suspected of being an ISIS member or who is viewed as a risk to possibly commit an act of terrorism in the US. The only people that would be kept out of the US by a President Trump edict placing a moratorium on all Muslim immigration that aren't already barred from entry by existing federal immigration law would be Muslim who don't have any connection to terrorism whatsoever and aren't viewed to be a potential terrorist. Why would we need a new law to stop people that aren't dangerous? Trump is just being another pandering politician playing to the most base instincts of a segment of voters and offering to pass new federal law that amounts to nothing more than extraneous busy work and added regulations that solve a nonexistent problem. The nominee for the party of limited govt conservatives is proposing big govt solutions to nonexistent problem via additional federal laws.

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.

Prestor Jon 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).

It seems that the terrorism prohibition in section 3 would already bar the entry of anyone who is an ISIS member or is suspected of being an ISIS member or who is viewed as a risk to possibly commit an act of terrorism in the US. The only people that would be kept out of the US by a President Trump edict placing a moratorium on all Muslim immigration that aren't already barred from entry by existing federal immigration law would be Muslim who don't have any connection to terrorism whatsoever and aren't viewed to be a potential terrorist. Why would we need a new law to stop people that aren't dangerous? Trump is just being another pandering politician playing to the most base instincts of a segment of voters and offering to pass new federal law that amounts to nothing more than extraneous busy work and added regulations that solve a nonexistent problem. The nominee for the party of limited govt conservatives is proposing big govt solutions to nonexistent problem via additional federal laws.

problem is that is not even guaranteed, look at the 9/11 terrorists, they got into the country, its not like terrorists have a sign saying they are terrorists, but I agree a blanket ban on all Muslims is not the answer, but it behooves one to wonder what is?

 d-usa wrote:
There is US code for many things that are unconstitutional, that doesn't make them constitutional. Just look at the flag code as a prime example, you can write all the laws you want, it's still unconstitutional to make it illegal to burn it. We can't go a week without bringing up Citizens United or the DOMA, so why are we pretending that "having a law" = "the law is constitutional"?

It's the law on the books.

Do some laws suck donkey's ass and should be obliterated? Yes.

Do some laws toe the grey-area where it'll split the populace's opinion 50/50? Of course...

Does it stop being the law? No.

If you don't like it, get congress-critters to change it or challenge it in court.

Frankly, if Obama banned Justin Beiber (Canadian Citizen) from re-entrying the US because he hated Beiber's last album... Obama could. The court generally loathes to get involved in statutory executive disputes... however, I can certainly see the Supreme Court neutering this to thy kingdom come, thus allowing 'the Beib' back in the states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Fraz. The 1st Amendment does jack and crap with respect to immigration functions.

I'll concede the usage of the Civil Rights Act (tenuous as it may be) as it's one argument the government is currently using in their case against Texas' DACA case.

 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.

For those who thinks HRC's emailgate isn't a problem, here's a poll that counters it:
https://morningconsult.com/2016/06/01/hillary-clinton-emails-poll-results/

The Morning Consult survey polled 2,001 registered voters from May 27-30 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Among all voters, 48 percent view the emails as a “major problem,” while 24 percent see it as a minor problem. Just 18 percent of voters said it was no problem at all. But even among Democrats, a quarter of them think it is a major problem for Clinton, compared with 50 percent of self-identified independents and 78 percent of Republicans.

Also:

Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent) believe Clinton should release the transcripts, along with 67 percent of independents and 80 percent of Republicans.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're now pretending that Catholicism, the single biggest denomination of Christianity on Earth, is not part of Christianity. What the heck happened to this thread?

I'll type it slower this time, to see if it helps:

Being a law on the books has absolutely zero impact on it being constitutional.

Right now there is a federal law that says it's illegal for me to not have a spotlight shining on the flag hanging in front of my house during the night.

The reason there are a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books is because:

a) idiot politicians pandering to idiot voters pass idiotic laws so that they can go back to the idiotic voters that voted for the idiotic politicians and tell them "I love the flag/hate the gays/whatever more than the other guys, look at this unconstitutional law I passed that says so".
b) non-idiot people working for federal agencies know that there is zero point trying to enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional and they would just cost money to enforce, so they remain on the books because there is never any opportunity to challenge them in court.
c) if they do get challenged, the idiot politicians just repeat step a.

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.

 d-usa wrote:
I'll type it slower this time, to see if it helps:

Being a law on the books has absolutely zero impact on it being constitutional.

Right now there is a federal law that says it's illegal for me to not have a spotlight shining on the flag hanging in front of my house during the night.

The reason there are a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books is because:

a) idiot politicians pandering to idiot voters pass idiotic laws so that they can go back to the idiotic voters that voted for the idiotic politicians and tell them "I love the flag/hate the gays/whatever more than the other guys, look at this unconstitutional law I passed that says so".
b) non-idiot people working for federal agencies know that there is zero point trying to enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional and they would just cost money to enforce, so they remain on the books because there is never any opportunity to challenge them in court.
c) if they do get challenged, the idiot politicians just repeat step a.

And I'll type my response slower as well:

The President has statutory authority to block any alien/immigrant/non-citizen for any reason. He/She just have to have "a reason".

The key to challenge the President's authority is what justification was used to block said alien/immigrant/non-citizen.

If it's "Imma block all Muslims from entering the states"... .then, I hope his/her ass get bitch slapped out the WH.

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.

 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).

section (f) wrote:For provision authorizing waiver of certain subparagraphs of this paragraph, see subsection (h).

 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.

 dogma 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).

section (f) wrote:For provision authorizing waiver of certain subparagraphs of this paragraph, see subsection (h).

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

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.

 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.

 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.

At the same time you can argue that every single law is unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is constitutional.

It doesn't take a SCOTUS ruling to know a law is unconstitutional, which is why there are smarter people than politicians who are not enforcing many many laws.

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?

 d-usa wrote:
At the same time you can argue that every single law is unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is constitutional.

It doesn't take a SCOTUS ruling to know a law is unconstitutional, which is why there are smarter people than politicians who are not enforcing many many laws.

so by your very statement I can own a Nuke, since there is no Constitutional law saying I cannot and yet the 2nd. amendment would say I can.

 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.