Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So deputy attorneys of the Justice Dept. are in the loop on national security briefings? Just because no citizen from those seven countries have committed harm in the US doesn't mean there isn't credible intelligence brought forth to support that a future act of terror is likely. National security intelligence isn't shared to Federal district courts to approve executive orders. This court injunction was a political move not a legal one.
As for the legal aspect of this, Non-US citizenship/ non green card holders outside of our borders are not protected by the US constitution, immigration policies/laws are enacted by congress and are enforced and fall under the jurisdiction of the executive branch and has the power to restrict certain countries if their is credible intelligence to support a security risk.
The judicial branch has no authority to say what is unconstitutional until those people are on US soil or fall under the jurisdiction of the US constitution
Is this explanation clear enough for you?
What you say is exactly what had me so perplexed and showed right away that this was an act of politics and not law and could open these people to charges of sedition against the United States of America.
What you say is exactly what had me so perplexed and showed right away that this was an act of politics and not law and could open these people to charges of sedition against the United States of America.
They can't. Trump didn't say that under oath. It was also a hearsay - heard from someone else without context. By saying "Muslim," Trump could very well mean radical Islamic terrorists, which are a lot of words to say.
Trump did not say "radical Islamic terrorist ban" for that would have been verbal nonsense but turned it into "Muslim ban." Leaving it at "keeping terrorists out" would have been just fine.
Ironic is it not that the very word that COULD undercut the EO in Court is also the very word that makes this EO such a dang blasted bad idea. Go after individuals, not the religion.
For those who believe that Muslims are easily persuaded by their religion to engage in worldwide jihad, why in the world declare the battle engaged? Once Trump uttered those words on the campaign trail he had boxed himself in - if not legally, certainly practically.
It was a great campaign sound bite, but bad policy.
Sorry if this has been posted (have been following most of this thread). But just saw in WaPo that attorneys opposing the order ARE arguing "intent."
Quote:
His words, the two states say in their brief, show “that the President acted in bad faith in an effort to target Muslims.” The courts, they say, “have both the right and duty to examine” Trump’s “true motives.”
The states offer a multitude of exhibits, starting with a December 2015 release from the Trump campaign calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
They cite his August speech advocating screening out people “who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.” ...
Another exhibit: His Jan. 27 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he said he wanted to give priority to Christians in Syria.
They even hauled out Rudolph W. Giuliani’s comment on Fox News that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”
In response, government lawyers are trying to have Trump’s rhetoric treated, so-to-speak, as inadmissible and irrelevant. ...
How the appeals court and ultimately, no doubt, the Supreme Court, responds remains to be seen. Both sides have their precedents to cite on probing presidential motive.
Home grown? And it was a temporary travel ban. TRAVEL to any of the countries on the list, and your request for re-entry requires additional vetting.
Place a temporary ban on those from Mexico and SA, as well, to improve vetting.
Mateen the Orlando Night Club shooter was born in the US, how are you going to screen 2nd generation immigrants, what heavy vetting will eliminate people like him?
So why wasn't Central America included in the travel ban, we had around 5 innocent people killed just on Long Island in the past several months by some of these gangs, after all this ban is about making us safe. Those 7 countries are far from our largest problem when it comes to terror.
Trump did not say "radical Islamic terrorist ban" for that would have been verbal nonsense but turned it into "Muslim ban." Leaving it at "keeping terrorists out" would have been just fine.
Ironic is it not that the very word that COULD undercut the EO in Court is also the very word that makes this EO such a dang blasted bad idea. Go after individuals, not the religion.
For those who believe that Muslims are easily persuaded by their religion to engage in worldwide jihad, why in the world declare the battle engaged? Once Trump uttered those words on the campaign trail he had boxed himself in - if not legally, certainly practically.
It was a great campaign sound bite, but bad policy.
Explain to me:
1. How is the ban targeting the religion?
2. What's good about this religion anyway?
Just note, the 9th circuit will of course rule against Trump. After all, they're the court who loves to be overturned given they do it sooo much. Most political court in this country.
That being said, it's not even about actually executing the EO anymore, it's about affirming the executive branch's power over issuance of visas. The court is treading dangerously toward completely and utterly rewriting law if they say Trump doesn't have the power to enact this EO. He does, it's constitutional, and now will have to go to SCOTUS to affirm this. Otherwise, it's not just a limitation or issue for Trump but for all future presidents as this decision would otherwise become case law.
So yes, I fully expect the 9th circuit to rule against Trump. I fully expect the appeal to go to SCOTUS where I fully expect Trump to prevail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
