• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Appeal to authority. Regardless though, the courts decision was not based on what was in the EO. Even the lawyer arguing against the EO in court admitted that if someone else had issued the EO then it could be Constitutional. The fact that the decision was not based on what was in the EO, that what was in the EO was ignored, shows that this is judicial activism.

I get why people want to consider this EO a ban on Muslims. But the EO itself banned everyone from those countries equally. No matter their religion. Additional fact is that Muslims from any other part of the world could still come to the US further shows that the EO was not a ban on Muslims entering the country. Which if you're going to parse words all of them would have had to be banned also if we were to go by what Trump said on the campaign trail. That did not happen.
Courts rule; some people don't like the decision. Happens with both Muslim and Gun bans. Time to cut a deal. You get your Muslim ban; they get their gun ban.

Then we all lose.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Please cite any decision in which the Supreme Court has ever held that any alien who has yet to enter U.S. territory enjoys any of the protections of the Constitution of the U.S. You will find it has only done so once, in 2008, in one of several Guantanamo cases, Boumediene v. Bush. In that wretched majority decision, Anthony Kennedy, the shame of the Court, contrived to find (he is good at contrivance) that a recent federal law violated the Constitution by suspending the privilege of alien jihadists detained at Guantanamo to the writ of habeas corpus.

Kennedy and his fellow legislators overruled Johnson v. Eisentrager, a brilliant 1950 decision that involved Nazi war criminals the U.S. was holding in the Far East; but he did it sub silentio because he and the justices who joined him lacked the integrity to admit what they were doing. I doubt most collectivists, who are informed mainly by pap prattled by stupid late-night TV comedians and articles scrawled by green-haired degenerates in urban throwaway papers, could even follow Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, which I strongly agree with. But I will provide a link to it for the constitutional conservative posters here, who will understand exactly what that great man was saying and will see that it makes perfect sense. Here is just a taste, and then the link:

"My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires." (emphasis added)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/723/dissent3.html


What Justice Scalia said about the Suspension Clause applies with equal force to both religion clauses of the First Amendment. It is the Constitution of the United States, not the Constitution of The Planet. As the Supreme Court has made very clear, in case after case going back many years, the government may exclude any alien from U.S. territory at any time, and it is not for courts to question its reasons.


We may need to get a second originalist justice on the Court to put an end to the lawless rulings on the executive order excluding certain aliens. In the meantime, I would like to see President Trump uphold his oath to protect the Constitution by ignoring these flagrantly unconstitutional lower federal court rulings.

Courts make lots of decisions one group or the other doesn't like. I'd be a little less eager than you to see a president just ignore them. You may not like it when the other side comes to power which, given our swinging pendulum, can happen during any given election.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

He can't answer because he knows that the vast majority of Muslims could still enter the US even if that EO were to be allowed to take effect.
And, interesting to note, NO ONE from listed countries would be allowed in. "Muslim ban" is a left wing lie.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

""Muslim ban" is a left wing lie." SB #28
"a left wing lie" the right-wing law courts have TWICE upheld.

"a left wing lie" that loopy loony lefty candidate Trump promised during his campaign for the presidency:
to completely suspend immigration from all Muslim nations until "we can figure out what the $#@! is going on!!"

BUT !!

If your point is that Trump has already broken numerous promises he made during his campaign:

- He hasn't repealed & replace Obamacare with something that would be cheaper and better, without touching entitlements

- He'd build a wall that Mexico would pay for (Republicans have already added funding for this unnecessary monstrosity)

BUT !!

The bulk of his 4 year term remains ahead of us. I'm sure there'll be much more disappointment in our future.

What a pity we won't be able to blame it on a:
"a left wing lie." SB #28
Instead it'll be a wrong-wing reality. Happy Memorial Day.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Read today's court decision and why they ruled 10-3 against Trump. I'm not explaining to you something you should already know.

the court should have not even heard the case at all, because the travel ban is a political question, not a constitutional one......Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

the court should have not even heard the case at all, because the travel ban is a political question, not a constitutional one......Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)

:roll: wtf does a redistricting case have to do with religious based travel bans?
 
Last edited:
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

It is when said ban involves a religious litmus test. The ban would have been fine, if Trump didn't call for a Muslim ban while out stumping. At least then he could have sold it as a ban on entry from certain countries, and written off the fact that they were majority Muslim to coincidence.

What you said in the past matters a whole lot when you're sitting in court. Everyone knows that..or, at least they better.

Calamity, you should know better. There was no litmus test in the EO. It hit less than 15% of all the Muslims on the planet. How are you making a Muslim ban when the other 85% are allowed to travel to the US as they please? The EO targeted exact countries with terrorist activity and in the midst of war.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

And, interesting to note, NO ONE from listed countries would be allowed in. "Muslim ban" is a left wing lie.

I find myself agreeing with you today, and it's annoying. :p

It is an affront to the people of those countries, to be generalized like that, and as an effective means of preventing terrorism, I'm not sure it is, since a motivated terrorist could simply travel by land or sea to a different country, and travel to the states from there under false papers.... But yes, you are correct. As numerous people have pointed out, the confusion likely comes because of the words Trump spoke during the election... But you are right, sir. As much as it pains me to say. :p
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I find myself agreeing with you today, and it's annoying. :p

It is an affront to the people of those countries, to be generalized like that, and as an effective means of preventing terrorism, I'm not sure it is, since a motivated terrorist could simply travel by land or sea to a different country, and travel to the states from there under false papers.... But yes, you are correct. As numerous people have pointed out, the confusion likely comes because of the words Trump spoke during the election... But you are right, sir. As much as it pains me to say. :p

The unfavorable rulings Trump is seeing today are a direct result of the stupid things he said back then. That has been stipulated by the court. Had Trump not gone there, he could have banned travel to any place he wanted. But, since he did go there, he ****ed himself...to use some plain English that Trump probably would understand.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Calamity, you should know better. There was no litmus test in the EO. It hit less than 15% of all the Muslims on the planet. How are you making a Muslim ban when the other 85% are allowed to travel to the US as they please? The EO targeted exact countries with terrorist activity and in the midst of war.

Again, you are making the same mistake most people here are making--the court is not going to ignore Trump repeatedly saying during his campaign that he will impose a Muslim ban.

You can't repeatedly tell the world you will shoot your wife. And then, when she ends up shot, say you did not mean to shoot your wife. Well, you can, but you are bound to lose in court and go to jail for a very long time.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

1. It's not a muslim ban. There is NO muslim ban. And if you're gonna believe it's a muslim ban because a court said so, then you're a sheep who appeals to authority. By no legal grounds can you call it a muslim ban.
"But oh, two courts called it a muslim ban, therefore it is one"

2. Even if it was, they're not US citizens. They're not protected by our consitution

3. The constitution must never be compromised

1 - Trump himself called it a "Muslim ban" on the campaign trail.

2 - The Constitution does in fact apply to non citizens.

3 - The Executive Order pretty clearly has Constitutional problems so the Constitution is not being compromised in this case.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

:roll: wtf does a redistricting case have to do with religious based travel bans?

the USSC out of that case held that the powers of the president concerning foreign relations is a political question and not a constitutional one and cannot be challenged in that repect


Political Question Doctrine

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. 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. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine
 
Last edited:
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.

Propagandise much?

The order is not a Muslim Ban. There is no mention of the any religion or even religion itself in the Travel Ban.

It's an almost word for word copy of travel bans Obama did twice, for a list of countries the Obama Administration identified as threats. The only difference Trump added Seria which is not at issue.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of Americans if there is a terrorist attack committed by someone who would have been prevented entry by this ban.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

1 - Trump himself called it a "Muslim ban" on the campaign trial.

2 - The Constitution does in fact apply to non citizens.

3 - The Executive Order pretty clearly has Constitutional problem so the Constitution is not being compromised in this case.

1 - It dont matter what Trump said months ago, what is in the order is all that counts.

2 - Non Citizens in America have Constitutional Protections, not when they are overseas. There is no right to immigrate to the US.

3 - Now that I have destroyed your first 2 points feel free to explain the Constitutional problems the Executive Order has?
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Again, you are making the same mistake most people here are making--the court is not going to ignore Trump repeatedly saying during his campaign that he will impose a Muslim ban.

You can't repeatedly tell the world you will shoot your wife. And then, when she ends up shot, say you did not mean to shoot your wife. Well, you can, but you are bound to lose in court and go to jail for a very long time.

Is it a Muslim ban? Does it ban all Muslims from migrating to the US? Is it even close to such? Does it name Muslims as specific targets of the travel restrictions? Is it a permanent ban to immigration and travel?

Quit dealing in maybes and deal in facts, which is what the court should have done.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I find myself agreeing with you today, and it's annoying. :p

It is an affront to the people of those countries, to be generalized like that, and as an effective means of preventing terrorism, I'm not sure it is, since a motivated terrorist could simply travel by land or sea to a different country, and travel to the states from there under false papers.... But yes, you are correct. As numerous people have pointed out, the confusion likely comes because of the words Trump spoke during the election... But you are right, sir. As much as it pains me to say. :p
As are you, the only way it would work is to shut our borders down. It was campaign lip service, nothing more.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

1. It's not a muslim ban. There is NO muslim ban. And if you're gonna believe it's a muslim ban because a court said so, then you're a sheep

Except the court said so specifically because Trump said so. Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric all throughout his campaign have been cited as the reason for not allowing the ban. We know it is a Muslim ban precisely because we are not sheep, and because we recognize that the bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Except the court said so specifically because Trump said so. Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric all throughout his campaign have been cited as the reason for not allowing the ban. We know it is a Muslim ban precisely because we are not sheep, and because we recognize that the bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
So, every single person from the listed countries is Muslim? No, more like a ban on countries.:screwy
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

1 - Trump himself called it a "Muslim ban" on the campaign trail.

Yeah, he said he wanted to. But nothing in the EO singles out Muslims.

2 - The Constitution does in fact apply to non citizens.

The Constitution applies to non-citizens only when they are with in our jurisdiction. Otherwise it does not. Courts have ruled on that already. I disagree with it, but that's what they've ruled on.

3 - The Executive Order pretty clearly has Constitutional problems so the Constitution is not being compromised in this case.

The ACLU lawyer that is arguing against the EO in court has already admitted that if someone else had been elected the EO more than likely would be Constitutional. So its not that the EO is unconstitutional. It's that Trump is the one that issued it. Everyone arguing against the EO is only doing so based on what Trump said on the Campaign trail. They are ignoring what the EO actually says and does. In the end this isn't about the EO, it's about political points.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Read today's court decision and why they ruled 10-3 against Trump. I'm not explaining to you something you should already know.

What part of the court decision is based on the EO? What parts of the EO does it specify?

Appeals to authority mean nothing. Try arguing the point for yourself.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

1. It's not a muslim ban. There is NO muslim ban. And if you're gonna believe it's a muslim ban because a court said so, then you're a sheep who appeals to authority. By no legal grounds can you call it a muslim ban.
"But oh, two courts called it a muslim ban, therefore it is one"

2. Even if it was, they're not US citizens. They're not protected by our consitution

3. The constitution must never be compromised

Our laws ARE dictated by the Constitution. Therefore, a law that targets a specific religion would be unconstitutional. Or maybe we should just not let immigrants go to church, since the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

Trump himself is, or soon will be returning from an itinerary that included Muslim countries. I think it's entirely reasonable to keep him from returning. It's a travel ban, not an orange people ban.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Our laws ARE dictated by the Constitution. Therefore, a law that targets a specific religion would be unconstitutional. Or maybe we should just not let immigrants go to church, since the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

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

Trump himself is, or soon will be returning from an itinerary that included Muslim countries. I think it's entirely reasonable to keep him from returning. It's a travel ban, not an orange people ban.

Can you make a stupider statement? :roll:
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

What part of the court decision is based on the EO? What parts of the EO does it specify?

Appeals to authority mean nothing. Try arguing the point for yourself.

I did that in plenty of posts in various threads. If you'll notice by reading the op this thread topic is not really about only that specific court decision. Try responding to the topic directly.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So, every single person from the listed countries is Muslim?

Pretty much yeah. At the very least they almost all are of middle eastern decent, and most conservatives can't tell the difference so...

No, more like a ban on countries.

I suppose you believe that so long as there was one heterosexual in that Gay Orlando Night club then Omar Mateen wasn't targeting gay people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

And I'm guessing you don't think the bombing of Hiroshima was targeting Japanese people because there was at least one Chinese guy that died in the blast?

And I suppose you believe that 9/11 wasn't targeting Americans since their were some middle easterners in the Twin Towers?

And I suppose you believe this idiot wasn't targeting Muslims just because he was too stupid to shoot up the right temple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Is it a Muslim ban? Does it ban all Muslims from migrating to the US? Is it even close to such? Does it name Muslims as specific targets of the travel restrictions? Is it a permanent ban to immigration and travel?

Quit dealing in maybes and deal in facts, which is what the court should have done.

Are all gun control measures gun bans? Do they ban all guns from being bought and owned by people living int he US? Are those measures, like extended background checks, restricting private gun sales and limiting magazine capacity or firing frequency, even close to thus?
 
Back
Top Bottom