VOICE is the new Trump's anti-Muslim program (not progrom...), stirring up fear and hatred against immigrants,
Trump highlights victims of crimes by immigrants
VOICE is the new Trump's anti-Muslim program (not progrom...), stirring up fear and hatred against immigrants,
Trump highlights victims of crimes by immigrants
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
Gotta love the "facts are hateful" rhetoric form the left.
Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude
A.B.A.P.
Because travel ban is specifically for countries, form which terrorists can disguise themselves as immigrants and infiltrate US, which isn't the case with Saudis, where we already know the main terrorists are in the government. Trump did pressure Saudis to go along with his plans on safe zones in Syria. It is only a beginning. US used to sell weapons ot Saddam as well, at some point, that didn't help him in the long run.
Yeah, he sure is showing those Saudis who's boss by going along with their policy in Yemen, selling them weapons and exempting their citizens from a regional ban. I'm sure those weapons will in no way be used to further Saudi interests...
Last edited by Napoleonic Bonapartism; March 10, 2017 at 03:57 PM.
When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?
- John Ball (1381)
Trump is selling Saudis the means to give him an excuse later on, just like they did in 1980s by selling Saddam chemical weapons.
Only difference being Saddam's removal was a mistake that lead to destabilization of the region, while removal of Saudis would greatly benefit the region.
You're aware that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, right? You're also aware that we've had literally no attacks from citizens from any of the countries on his list, right?
So what you're saying is he's gonna push for another invasion in the Middle East? So more neocon shenanigans?
(BTW, my reply before this, I thought I was posting in the immigration ban thread, damn touch screens )
Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude
A.B.A.P.
Just been through this like two weeks ago. The US did not sell chemical weapons to Saddam.
The chemical stuff was sold by Germany and Brazil. The US did not arm Saddam. The vast majority of Saddam's arms came from the communist block countries (Soviet and eastern Europe was close to 70% with Red Chinese another 12%) This should not be surprising, as Iraq was essentially a Soviet client state. The French sold another 13 percent (source is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute).
Last edited by Infidel144; March 10, 2017 at 06:35 PM.
Can we return to the point that this new travel ban is still illegal because the intent behind the law (muslim ban) is still unconstitutional and the trump administration failed to provide the 9th circuit court (or any court) with any reasoning as to how this ban helps promote national security?
The sad thing is that this second ban is likely to be struck down again by a lower court. Trump's BS doesn't even take the supreme court to resolve.
Yep...Federal judge not ready to rule on blocking new travel ban - ABC New
federal judge in Seattle who issued the order temporarily halting nationwide implementation of President Donald Trump's initial travel ban said Friday that because of procedural reasons he won't immediately rule on whether his restraining order applies to the new travel ban...Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said earlier this week that the revised travel ban has "the same illegal motivations as the original."
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
Trump can, and should, ignore the rulings of those district court judges.
It is WELL outside the bounds of authority/jurisdiction for any judge to rule on a federal executive order dealing with immigration. The regulation of immigration is *exclusively* reserved for Congress and the President, and the President has the ultimate/final determination in who is allowed into the USA.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-ignore-the-court/
Trump should simply state "the order is effective, the ruling by that judge means nothing."
"God is, as man conceives Him, the reflected image of man himself." Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma (33° AASR)
Ignore list [to save time]-
Ferrets54, Hanny, Harith, mongrel, Setekh, Gaidin, Bismarck1899, antaeus, empr guy, Enros, IronBrig4, The spartan, the_mango55, Sar1n,
That reads like a really poor op-ed. The guy is just complaining about liberal judges overstepping their legal bounds, but doesn't show any evidence of it happening. American judicial review applies to anything constitutional, which includes executive orders.
Didn't you just say in the Obama's legacy thread that you don't like Abraham Lincoln for ignoring checks and balances? Wouldn't Trump be doing the same thing if he did that?
It's generally accepted that non-citizens have no right to migrate to the country, and that the executive branch has very broad powers to deny entry to any non-citizen. I am guessing that the Supremes will have to confirm this (again).
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Article 3, Section 2...
Judicial review does not apply to EVERYTHING.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
It has been consistently determined/held/agreed/understood that Congress can circumscribe the jurisdiction of the court or state "this law is not subject to judicial review" or they can specify that only state courts have jurisdiction over some matter, or they can reserve sole/exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts and strip state courts of jurisdiction [i.e. the bankruptcy code vests exclusive jurisdiction in federal courts].
Immigration laws already passed by Congress state that the President has the sole power to determine eligibility for entering the nation.
"God is, as man conceives Him, the reflected image of man himself." Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma (33° AASR)
Ignore list [to save time]-
Ferrets54, Hanny, Harith, mongrel, Setekh, Gaidin, Bismarck1899, antaeus, empr guy, Enros, IronBrig4, The spartan, the_mango55, Sar1n,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisd...me_Court_cases
Further federal statutes[edit]
More recent examples of jurisdiction stripping include the following:
- Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (inter alia, stripped the federal judiciary of its jurisdiction to review certain Immigration and Naturalization Service decisions),
- Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (restricting the remedies available to prison inmates),
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (limiting the number of habeas corpus petitions available to prison inmates),[25]
- Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, ruled an unconstitutional denial of the right of habeas corpus pursuant to the Suspension clause. Boumediene v. Bush.
"God is, as man conceives Him, the reflected image of man himself." Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma (33° AASR)
Ignore list [to save time]-
Ferrets54, Hanny, Harith, mongrel, Setekh, Gaidin, Bismarck1899, antaeus, empr guy, Enros, IronBrig4, The spartan, the_mango55, Sar1n,
It's hard to see this being overturned based on "judicial overreach", the court has upheld suspensions of Obama's EO's regarding immigration in recent years and hasn't changed membership. The judges order to suspend the EO was also based on a supreme court decision that required the context of actions to be considered; and with the context of the campaign it's easy to see this is supposed to be about banning muslims. Congress could theoretically make a law stripping the courts of jurisdiction here but it would be a waste of their time and they doubtlessly know it.
odi et amo quare id faciam fortasse requiris / nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior
Very disappointing for Trump's supporters that this administration isn't capable of framing a constitutionally valid EO on this matter. Treating Muslim refugees harshly was a plank in Trumps election platform, but he's failing to get it done.
From the commentary I am seeing the legal response is sound, its just badly written orders that are the problem here.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
In February one district court judge held that it was constitutional/valid and he refused to block it.
The EO is constitutionally valid and this area of law is not even subject to judicial review. Of the judges who think they are capable of reviewing it, most are getting it wrong.
"God is, as man conceives Him, the reflected image of man himself." Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma (33° AASR)
Ignore list [to save time]-
Ferrets54, Hanny, Harith, mongrel, Setekh, Gaidin, Bismarck1899, antaeus, empr guy, Enros, IronBrig4, The spartan, the_mango55, Sar1n,