Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments [W:609]

[calamity]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Passive aggressive deflection, cute. I didn't bring up the Executive order, you did. Since you don't want to discuss it, I assume you are conceding you are wrong.

Oh, wait, you DO want to discuss it.

Immigration is not a right.
The EO did not make an outright ban.
The EO was not permanent.
The EO did not pick every Muslim country, just those in a state of war or those that sponsor or harbor terrorism.
The EO affected 13% of all Muslims on the planet, hardly a religious test.

So, I take it you want to have your way in stripping a key provision of the 1st Amendment, but are completely unwilling to concede any ground on the 2nd. Do I have that correct?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So, I take it you want to have your way in stripping a key provision of the 1st Amendment, but are completely unwilling to concede any ground on the 2nd. Do I have that correct?

It isn't a first amendment question. If you take Trump's statements and examine them, you can see them change over time in much the same way that the Executive order changed. Likewise you can see the Obama EO that is nearly identical in execution and wording. The court is engaged in guessing intent through political statements rather than knowing it through the wording of the order.

Political statements are being used to judge the intent of an order rather than the direct wording of the order itself. If you cannot find such intent in the execution of the order, how can you rule it unconstitutional, especially in light of no challenges to a similar provision from the Obama administration?

 

[Master PO]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So no judiciary that operates independently from the President?

You also never really answered the question. Is looking at original intent good or not? Or only good when it favors your desired outcome politically.

i did answer the question and here it is again

" the court cannot rule based on hear-say, they must rule based on what the EO states in its text"

 

[Master PO]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

You may want it to work that way, but it most certainly does not. Intent is always relevant. And, when you broadcast your intent with a bullhorn, you should not complain when someone refuses to believe your denials later.

wrong, because the court is to base its decision on whats written in the EO, not based the presidents words or action, this is not a criminal case, trump is not being judged.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Show me in the EO where it targets a specific religion. You can't can you?



Can you make a stupider statement? :roll:

I will take probably for 2000 Alex :mrgreen:

 

[calamity]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

wrong, because the court is to base its decision on whats written in the EO, not based the presidents words or action, this is not a criminal case, trump is not being judged.

His intent certainly is.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

His intent certainly is.

well if it is, its wrong.

because its not a criminal case, or one which places a judgement on any person.

Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions.

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

The ACLU lawyer is probably right. The problem is that Trump stated many times that he wanted to ban Muslims so not matter how he dresses up the EO it is going to be interpreted in that light which then makes it an issue of religious discrimination.

Yeah, people will associate it with that, but does the EO ACTUALLY do it? Or is it non-discriminatory? That is the difference. A person can say one thing, and do another after all. For instance I wish that I could get rid of a few people that live at the apartments I am at. Just because I don't particularly like them. Not because of anything against the rules. However if I were to become manager of the apartments I wouldn't just get rid of them since they're not breaking any rules.

Edit to note: On this forum I have power to ban people. I would like to ban a few that are currently posting. Will I? Nope. Because they have not reached the requirements for a ban. Just a more real example of what I'm talking about here. One that you can see for yourself. Having the power to do something, wanting to do something =/= actually doing that something.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So if you're saying intent doesn't matter, why is that a quality you all were looking for in a Supreme Court justice? Or is it one of those "it needs to only be in ways that I like" things?

Intent does matter. Problem here is that despite Trumps words on the campaign trail nothing in the EO actually does what he said. His EO is a temporary travel ban of all persons from those countries (a select few countries based on intel from the previous administration). ALL persons. No matter their religion, race, creed etc etc. Plus it was only a temp ban. Part of which was being used to try and get those countries to comply with information requests on the people that our immigration branch requests of those countries. A "do this and you get to let your citizens travel here again" type of coercion. Now if it had been a permanent ban, or a ban that only included select groups you would have a case that Trump is actually doing what he said he'd like to do. But Trumps words on the campaign trail is not reflecting his actions. That at most makes him a liar in this case. Not someone attempting to do unconstitutional things.

Has there never been a time in your life where you said you'd like to do something, had the power to do it, but didn't follow through because you realized that it would be against the law or the wrong thing to do? Intent matters yes. But sometimes actions matter more.

 

[chuckiechan]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Well, perhaps after today's ruling, where a court once again struck down Trump's Muslim Ban, some of the Right Wingers here may be interested in making a few minor adjustments to the Freedom of Religion protections granted us by the 1st Amendment. Specifically how the courts interpret it.

After all, the argument is that banning Muslims would make us safer. I do not even disagree with you all on that. It may have some merit. Not that all Muslims are terrorists, but we do know some are. So, maybe the court should not read that "...shall make no law" part in the 1st so literally. Eh?

Well, some of your mortal enemies--in this case, not the Muslims-- the Liberals, want to make a few minor adjustments to the 2nd. They would like to tweak how the court interprets that "...shall not be infringed" part. Maybe relax it a bit for certain weapons and ammunition....you know, to make us a little safer. Who knows? That too may have some merit.

So, is it time to cut a deal between these mortal enemies? The Left gives an inch on protecting the rights of all people, regardless of their religion, and the Right gives an inch on protecting the rights of all people to have any damned gun they choose?

Maybe this is a great starting point. Come to an agreement, and that way each side can go after the things they don't like. The Right can go after bad religions and the Left can go after bad guns. Win win.

It's going to SCOTUS, and when the courts bitch slap the circuit judges for making such as asinine decision, the justice department should move against them for incompetence.

You can't use campaign rethoric as a basis to determine the constitutionality of an E.O., and then reason the same order given by a different president would not be a problem. These judges are incompetent to render judgements of any significance.

 

[Casca XV]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

The court disagrees with you. According to the court what Trump said on the campaign trail goes to his intent with respect to the EO. The Constitutional issue then is one religious discrimination which does in fact apply to non-citizens trying to immigrate here.

It fortunate that the Supreme Court is mostly none Left Wing extremists. It will be even better after Gensburg kicks the Bucket and Trump replaces her.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

It's going to SCOTUS, and when the courts bitch slap the circuit judges for making such as asinine decision, the justice department should move against them for incompetence.

You can't use campaign rethoric as a basis to determine the constitutionality of an E.O., and then reason the same order given by a different president would not be a problem. These judges are incompetent to render judgements of any significance.

I'm disappointed that Congress, both houses of which have Republican majorities, has not involved itself more aggressively in this matter. It is almost as if Republicans in Congress do not want to help their President. The Constitution deals with Congress in Article I for a reason--it was meant to be the most powerful of the three branches. It is time--past time--it started asserting that power to clip the wings of these renegade federal courts. It could do that--should do that--by enacting a law which removes the jurisdiction of any inferior federal court to hear any matter involving the exclusion of aliens from U.S. territory. Congress' authority to take that action is beyond question, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged:

"There can be no question of the power of Congress thus to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States." Lauf v. E.G. Shinnner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1939).

It would be very strange if Congress did not have this power. The Constitution creates only one federal court--the Supreme Court of the U.S. It vests the judicial power of the United States in this Court, "and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The federal district courts and courts of appeal would not even exist if Congress had not enacted laws establishing them.

Congress even has power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court--meaning almost all its power to decide cases. The Court has appellate jurisdiction "with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make." U.S.C. Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2. An outraged and determined Congress once exercised that power very forcefully in a post-Civil War case, Ex Parte McCardle. It passed a law removing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case after it had already heard oral arguments in it. The Court meekly did what it was told, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It would not hurt for the Court to hear McCardle pointedly mentioned every so often.

 

[Gaius46]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Yeah, people will associate it with that, but does the EO ACTUALLY do it? Or is it non-discriminatory? That is the difference. A person can say one thing, and do another after all. For instance I wish that I could get rid of a few people that live at the apartments I am at. Just because I don't particularly like them. Not because of anything against the rules. However if I were to become manager of the apartments I wouldn't just get rid of them since they're not breaking any rules.

Edit to note: On this forum I have power to ban people. I would like to ban a few that are currently posting. Will I? Nope. Because they have not reached the requirements for a ban. Just a more real example of what I'm talking about here. One that you can see for yourself. Having the power to do something, wanting to do something =/= actually doing that something.

Honestly I haven't read the entire thing I've only skimmed it. As far as I know the nations it applies to are predominantly, if not completely, Muslim so in application it applies only to Muslims. Dressed up in the language of a suspension of entry from certain countries on it's face doesn't make it a "Muslim ban" even when applied to Muslim only countries but Trump's language makes it appear that way despite what the EO actually says since it in effect accomplishes the same end.

I'm a textualist at heart and if this were a piece of legislation that has to be voted on I'd have serious problems with using his past statements to derive an unwritten intent and I admit I have some problems with doing so here though for some reason it feels less inappropriate because this is an EO and not legislation. It seems glaring plain to me what his intent is and that the wording of the EO is simply a means to try to skirt Constitutional issues.

I understand that some of the concurring opinions found Constitutional issues aside from the religious discrimination ones with the EO. But the damn thing is 200+ pages long and it's Memorial Day weekend so I don't think I'm going to have time to read it.

 

[Gaius46]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

It fortunate that the Supreme Court is mostly none Left Wing extremists. It will be even better after Gensburg kicks the Bucket and Trump replaces her.

Do you know for a fact that the court is packed with "left wing extremists" or are you just assuming that because you don't agree with the decision?

The court, in case your interested, has 8 members appointed by Republican presidents, including the Chief Justice (recess appointment by Clinton and reappointed by Bush), who wrote the opinion, and 10 appointed by Democrats. The court itself covers Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. On it's face it wouldn't seem to be a likely place to find "left wing extremists."

 

[calamity]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

It's going to SCOTUS, and when the courts bitch slap the circuit judges for making such as asinine decision, the justice department should move against them for incompetence.

You can't use campaign rethoric as a basis to determine the constitutionality of an E.O., and then reason the same order given by a different president would not be a problem. These judges are incompetent to render judgements of any significance.

SCOTUS may surprise you on this.

 

[chuckiechan]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I'm disappointed that Congress, both houses of which have Republican majorities, has not involved itself more aggressively in this matter. It is almost as if Republicans in Congress do not want to help their President. The Constitution deals with Congress in Article I for a reason--it was meant to be the most powerful of the three branches. It is time--past time--it started asserting that power to clip the wings of these renegade federal courts. It could do that--should do that--by enacting a law which removes the jurisdiction of any inferior federal court to hear any matter involving the exclusion of aliens from U.S. territory. Congress' authority to take that action is beyond question, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged:

"There can be no question of the power of Congress thus to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States." Lauf v. E.G. Shinnner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1939).

It would be very strange if Congress did not have this power. The Constitution creates only one federal court--the Supreme Court of the U.S. It vests the judicial power of the United States in this Court, "and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The federal district courts and courts of appeal would not even exist if Congress had not enacted laws establishing them.

Congress even has power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court--meaning almost all its power to decide cases. The Court has appellate jurisdiction "with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make." U.S.C. Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2. An outraged and determined Congress once exercised that power very forcefully in a post-Civil War case, Ex Parte McCardle. It passed a law removing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case after it had already heard oral arguments in it. The Court meekly did what it was told, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It would not hurt for the Court to hear McCardle pointedly mentioned every so often.

It's better politically that these appellate courts that are populated with Obama appointees, be shown to be the renegades that they are. I would not be surprised to see 9-0 in favor of the president. And from that I would support those judges being impeached for incompetence for entertaining such a false attempt to allow dangerous jihad's in to he USA. Furthermore, the court seemed to bestow constitutional rights and standing to persons who are not citizens and are not in the USA.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I don't believe that the 1st or the 2nd Amendments are going anywhere any time soon.

There is too much support for both of them.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

It's better politically that these appellate courts that are populated with Obama appointees, be shown to be the renegades that they are. I would not be surprised to see 9-0 in favor of the president. And from that I would support those judges being impeached for incompetence for entertaining such a false attempt to allow dangerous jihad's in to he USA. Furthermore, the court seemed to bestow constitutional rights and standing to persons who are not citizens and are not in the USA.

I think that's just what this court did. I wish I shared your confidence about how the Supreme Court would vote on this. I would not count on the votes of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, or Kennedy at all, and I doubt Justices Ginsburg or Breyer would support the executive order either. I hope I'm wrong.

I would support impeachment of all the judges who have voted against this executive order too, but I think removing the jurisdiction of all lower federal courts over the matter would have been a better, simpler way to stop their lawlessness. Jurisdiction-stripping is a very powerful tool, and Congress should use it more. Just discussing it is good, because many people don't seem to know about it. I see too much of the slavish attitude: "Well, we just have to do whatever the court said." Well, we do NOT. In this country, the people, speaking through Congress, have the final say about what the Constitution means.

 

[gmeyers1944]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So what is the travel ban against? What people are a threat to the US?

"DUH!" Terrorists.

 

[gmeyers1944]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So, I take it you want to have your way in stripping a key provision of the 1st Amendment, but are completely unwilling to concede any ground on the 2nd. Do I have that correct?

How does preventing persons who were not properly vetted (thus could possibly be terrorists) from coming to America? How is that stripping a key provision from the 1st Amendment?

 

[Carleen]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

"DUH!" Terrorists.

Really? I thought it was against Muslims. (Sarcasm)

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Honestly I haven't read the entire thing I've only skimmed it. As far as I know the nations it applies to are predominantly, if not completely, Muslim so in application it applies only to Muslims. Dressed up in the language of a suspension of entry from certain countries on it's face doesn't make it a "Muslim ban" even when applied to Muslim only countries but Trump's language makes it appear that way despite what the EO actually says since it in effect accomplishes the same end.

No, in application it applies to everyone in those countries. There are more than just Muslims in those countries. Them being predominately Muslim is irrelevant to that fact.

I'm a textualist at heart and if this were a piece of legislation that has to be voted on I'd have serious problems with using his past statements to derive an unwritten intent and I admit I have some problems with doing so here though for some reason it feels less inappropriate because this is an EO and not legislation. It seems glaring plain to me what his intent is and that the wording of the EO is simply a means to try to skirt Constitutional issues.

If you're a textualist then why are you going by something other than the text? Just because its Trump? A windbag that always exaggerates?

I understand that some of the concurring opinions found Constitutional issues aside from the religious discrimination ones with the EO. But the damn thing is 200+ pages long and it's Memorial Day weekend so I don't think I'm going to have time to read it.

The religious concern is the only one that I've heard of. Got a link to it? Maybe I'll take the time to read it if it actually has other Constitutional concerns. Which frankly would amaze me considering how many other times the same thing has happened with past Presidents and no one ever said a thing about them.

 

[calamity]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

How does preventing persons who were not properly vetted (thus could possibly be terrorists) from coming to America? How is that stripping a key provision from the 1st Amendment?

Try this on for size. If, after a Right Wing terrorist holding a Bible blew up an abortion clinic, Obama gave a speech calling for a Christian ban, and then tried to institute an EO which banned visitors from mostly Christian countries, would you be concerned? Would you see it as a violation of the 1st?

Hell, we don't even need a hypothetical. We have a real life scenario where refusing to bake gay people a wedding cake has been deemed to be a religious right. Entire armies of Christian warriors are out there screaming that laws forcing people to bake that cake violates the First Amendment.

I still say, let's make a deal. The Right gives an inch or two on the 2nd, and the Left gives an inch or two on the 1st. How come the Right does not want to come to the table?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Try this on for size. If, after a Right Wing terrorist holding a Bible blew up an abortion clinic, Obama gave a speech calling for a Christian ban, and then tried to institute an EO which banned visitors from mostly Christian countries, would you be concerned? Would you see it as a violation of the 1st?

Hell, we don't even need a hypothetical. We have a real life scenario where refusing to bake gay people a wedding cake has been deemed to be a religious right. Entire armies of Christian warriors are out there screaming that laws forcing people to bake that cake violates the First Amendment.

I still say, let's make a deal. The Right gives an inch or two on the 2nd, and the Left gives an inch or two on the 1st. How come the Right does not want to come to the table?

Are they harboring people that want to make similar statements and actions and vow to blow up more people?
Are they at war and their refugees may be more people wanting to conduct terror in this country?

Those are the secular questions being dealt with. Why cant you see that they are valid concerns?

As for the 2nd, there are restrictions on it already. Where have you been?

 

[calamity]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Are they harboring people that want to make similar statements and actions and vow to blow up more people?
Are they at war and their refugees may be more people wanting to conduct terror in this country?

Those are the secular questions being dealt with. Why cant you see that they are valid concerns?

As for the 2nd, there are restrictions on it already. Where have you been?

You are aware that there are probably 100X more act of terror committed in the US by Christians than Muslims. No? And, guess what, most of them are using their 2nd Amendment rights to achieve that end.

If you really want to keep us safe, maybe tweaking the 2nd Amendment is more in order than scrapping a large part of the 1st.