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.
There is also the newly-formed "American Oversight," a watchdog group formed by attorneys, whose sole purpose is to keep a check on Trump and his admins ethics, corruption and conflict of interest issues, using all public records available. I can't imagine with all his foreign entanglements, he can be happy about that.
Here's the deal: Last fall, the majority of Americans did not vote for either the Republican POTUS, the Republican Senators, or the Republican To-Do list.
Though California is often accused, and rightly so, of tipping the popular vote scales in both arenas, the fact remains that the majority of people voted for a whole different list. Some 40% didn't vote at all.
Trump and the Republicans have a little over a year to show this 40% in the middle that GOP goals are worthwhile endeavors and that they can do a decent job of governing.
No time like the present to get going on this.
As a political strategy, the wisdom of the Muslim travel bans evade me. Is this a test of the system? A diversion from something else? This is not about protecting us from terrorists. DHS report put that to rest. The base is already plenty riled as it is. So, anyone know what this is about?
Then Trump accused Obama of wiretapping his condo. How's that investigation coming along? Has Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and his recently "rightsized" Department of Justice found so much as a shred of evidence, a piece of paper, or a single person who will testify to this?
How about a microwave that turns into a camera? A pen that records and shoots a single bullet? Anything?
The ACA Repeal & Replace is an on-going fiasco. What is the vision here?
I understand the strategy of creating a lot fuss and bother to distract from what is going on behind the scenes. Is that what this is all about?
In any case, when Trump took the oath of office, he vowed to protect and defend the Constitution. He needs to at least do that.
FYI: Smacking yourself in the head does appear to be helping.
"Then Trump accused Obama of wiretapping his condo."
Actually he said, "Someone TOLD me this morning...."
You have asked alt of questions that have been explain in the news over and over.
If you DON"t know by now, there is no use trying to educate you at this point
Your logic is back passwords. The progressive liberals with their mind-reading bans are so out they aren't even left field. It is the progressive liberal appointed judges who are creating the delay. Meme speciously failing.
But, then I am not Alan Dershowitz; nor you. He even opposes the travel ban, yet says it is on strong constitutional grounds. Are you anti-constitution?
You missed my point, it will take months to go to the supreme court and by then there will no longer be a need for a ban. He stated he needed 90 days to put the new procedure in place, this will be a non-issue by then.
You missed my point, it will take months to go to the supreme court and by then there will no longer be a need for a ban. He stated he needed 90 days to put the new procedure in place, this will be a non-issue by then.
If team Trump get busy on it, they could have their new and improved vetting procedure ready by the time the Supreme Court takes up the matter.
In fact, if they had gotten right after it on Day one, they'd be two/thirds done now.
He did say a Muslim ban during and constantly since being in office. He is such a bigot.
Why he hates Mexicans and Muslims is beyond me. He should not be the President and CEO of our country, IMO
He isn't a bigot, and I have NEVER heard him use the term "Muslim ban" since being in office, and I'm not sure he ever said "Muslim ban" during the campaign.
At any rate, even if he did use the term during the campaign, it is irrelevant to this travel ban, because nowhere in this E.O. is he banning "Muslims." There is no mention of Islam or Muslims. There are many countries of Muslim majorities that are not included, as some have pointed out.
What he has said during the campaign is that we should stop the "refugee" resettlement, and he probably did refer to them as "Muslims" because 99% (rough figure, but it's close) of the "refugees" we are bringing in are Muslim ...not Christian or any other religious group. Why is that?
He doesn't "hate" Mexicans either. That is simply an inference made by those of you on the Left because of your hatred. But many of the illegals who are entering this country, drug pushers, human traffickers, and other criminals are rapists as well. But you only heard what you wanted to hear, didn't you?
How many times we heard Obama bash Christians, and yet you probably never called him a bigot. Obama clearly is a racist, but you never raised your voice against him, did you? He refused to prosecute New Black Panthers who were intimidating white voters at the polls. He invited the racist "Black Lives Matter" leaders to the White House, even though the chant, "Pigs in a blanket. Fry'em like bacon!" And you're going to try to tell me he wasn't a racist bigot?
Obsfuscation. This is now about what is and isn't constitutional. That is the point. Dems caused a delay in implementation, thus denying the president's point of emergency. Does not change his original point in both travel bans. Dems have a pretty lousy track record when it comes right down to constitutional point. But, delay and dragging things through the court system can be seen as successful politics.
If you are choking, your friend says she's dying and I prevent you from going to the emergency room, just because I don't like your politics; sure I have delayed a life saving trip. I did not change the original emergency. I might have caused your death though.
Like I said, back asswords.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
You missed my point, it will take months to go to the supreme court and by then there will no longer be a need for a ban. He stated he needed 90 days to put the new procedure in place, this will be a non-issue by then.
Do you know what a court is and what their purpose is? The court makes legal decisions. They decide on matters of LAW. Thus, deciding whether something is LEGAL, no matter what it is, is their only job. It doesn't matter who it is that's making the decision. If God himself decreed that we all had to have pink blinds in our houses and the FBI could enter everyone's homes and remove our beige or white ones and replace them with mauve, the Court would have the authority to strike that ruling down as unconstitutional based on unreasonable search and seizure. The president isn't above the law either.
They did not base any of their opinions on the legality of the President's order. If they did, and if they were honest, they would have to admit that it is legal.
You need to educate yourself, because you do not know what your are talking about. Every Constitutional attorney who has written about this has said this court is wrong, and made the arguments that I have made.
The President makes foreign policy. Not the court. Period. And the law clearly states that the President may ban any class or group of immigrants as he sees fit, if he believes it is not in the interest of the United States. That, my friend, is the law. And this court cannot change that. Congress makes law, not the court.
That's obviously incorrect, because if your claim were true, the first travel ban would be law already. The president can't enact or repeal any federal law without the clearance of Congress and the courts. We have a tripartite system of government for a reason. If one branch feels that a law would be illegal, they stop the law from becoming reality. And that's a great thing, because with a Republican supermajority, there is little to stop Trump from enacting any EO he wants at this point save the courts.
The first travel ban was also lawful, and the court wrong. Sorry dude.
The President is not "enacting law." He is setting immigration policy. There is a difference. And he has the authority to do so, under the Constitution. An E.O. is how the President sets policy. If it is within his Constitutional power, it is legal. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power has been vested in the President alone.
Where are you getting your information from? Have you ever read the relevant law? It is the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Section 212 F, and codified under Title 8 USC 1182. Look it up and read it. It is very clear. It cannot be misunderstood. The language is plain.
Also read and study the Constitution. You might want to take a Constitution course also. I did. Knowledge is power. You have a very poor understanding of our government.
Have you ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? President Monroe declared any further colonization in the Western Hemisphere would be seen as a threat and would be responded to accordingly (That's the essence of it, not the wording). It was his authority under the Constitution to make such a policy. The President alone set's foreign policy, and the court has no authority to interfere, as these courts are doing.
These courts are wrong, and overstepping their authority. Period. They are, in effect, changing the Constitution by limiting the President's power.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 03-16-2017 at 05:32 PM..
Let's hope a giant bus explosion with a huge bomb does not blow up in your neighborhood. Since 9-11, the terrorists are bringing their misery to the U.S. I trust you and your posts will disappear for awhile... with the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil. And just like earthquakes in San Fransisco, it's not "if".... it's "when" they attack us next. You know that, right?
Your logic is back passwords. The progressive liberals with their mind-reading bans are so out they aren't even left field. It is the progressive liberal appointed judges who are creating the delay. Meme speciously failing.
But, then I am not Alan Dershowitz; nor you. He even opposes the travel ban, yet says it is on strong constitutional grounds. Are you anti-constitution?
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.
