• 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

Trump called it a ban. His own website called it that up until about 3 weeks ago when they finally realized they better change the language because it was being used against them.

No, you are wrong. During the campaign, Donald Trump made reference to A Muslim ban. President Trump's first travel ban, issued on January 27th, was not a Muslim ban and neither is the second travel ban. There is nothing in the text of either temporary ban that would lead one to believe that it was a Muslim ban. A Muslim ban would include countries like Indonesia and India which are # 1 and #2 most Muslim nations of the world.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

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



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
You suppose to much, try reading the words, not reading into them.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Well, what Trump wants to do is probably a Muslim Ban. See how that works?

Look, if you want a deal, you gotta give up something. Want to ban Muslims, give up a few automatic rifles.

Automatic rifles are already illegal.
 
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.

When a president issues an executive order, the only thing that counts is the text of that executive order. Anything else that the President may say is irrelevant.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

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.

Sidestep noted.
 
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.

President Obama was concerned about the countries on this temporary ban. As usual, President Obama was long on words but short on action.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

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?

You are conflating rights of free people already citizens in this country to people who are not citizens that want the privilege of immigrating to this country. Your deflection is rejected as apples and oranges. Please answer the questions, don't attempt to deflect.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

You are conflating rights of free people already citizens in this country to people who are not citizens that want the privilege of immigrating to this country. Your deflection is rejected as apples and oranges. Please answer the questions, don't attempt to deflect.

I don't see it that way. But, nice attempt at avoiding the theme of the thread, which does compare the Right's attack on the 1st to the Left's attack on the 2nd.

BTW, what if the ban affects American citizens whose relatives are trying to immigrate here from Trump's Muslim banned countries? Do they not count in your world?
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Sidestep noted.

You of all people should know the rules of staying on point in a thread. Please do.

There are plenty of other threads where the specific issue of the ban and its mechanics are discussed. You are free to read my comments made in those. This thread is about the 1st and 2nd Amendments as laid out in the op.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Automatic rifles are already illegal.

Ah, so there is a precedent for such, which can nicely be used to include certain semi-auto rifles, especially those that are easily converted to full auto.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

No, you are wrong. During the campaign, Donald Trump made reference to A Muslim ban. President Trump's first travel ban, issued on January 27th, was not a Muslim ban and neither is the second travel ban. There is nothing in the text of either temporary ban that would lead one to believe that it was a Muslim ban. A Muslim ban would include countries like Indonesia and India which are # 1 and #2 most Muslim nations of the world.

I agree there is nothing in the text. But he expressed his intent and is trying to get away with as much of a one as he can. The courts see through it.

It is the same with the incremental gun control. Imagine if Obama had stated during his campaign that he wanted to ban all guns and confiscate the ones we already own, and then when he took office he started using EOs to incrementally erode our right to bear arms, but in very small ways that had a chance of passing Constitutional mustard. I guarantee you gun advocates on this board, myself included, and perhaps the courts, would call him in his intent. Maybe the EO wouldn't mention a gun ban. Maybe it just put a temporary moratorium on AR-15s, nothing permanent. We would call BS because we would know what his true intention was.

Maybe you think intent shouldn't be taken into account. Many people would agree with you. But so far the courts don't.
 
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:

You can make more stupid statements. In fact, I'd have to sink quite a way to use "stupider" which isn't a word.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I agree there is nothing in the text. But he expressed his intent and is trying to get away with as much of a one as he can. The courts see through it.

It is the same with the incremental gun control. Imagine if Obama had stated during his campaign that he wanted to ban all guns and confiscate the ones we already own, and then when he took office he started using EOs to incrementally erode our right to bear arms, but in very small ways that had a chance of passing Constitutional mustard. I guarantee you gun advocates on this board, myself included, and perhaps the courts, would call him in his intent. Maybe the EO wouldn't mention a gun ban. Maybe it just put a temporary moratorium on AR-15s, nothing permanent. We would call BS because we would know what his true intention was.

Maybe you think intent shouldn't be taken into account. Many people would agree with you. But so far the courts don't.

Anything not in the text of an EO is irrevalent
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

You can make more stupid statements. In fact, I'd have to sink quite a way to use "stupider" which isn't a word.

Are you going to show me where in the EO it targets a specific religion? Or are you going ignore the fact that it doesn't?

And yes, "stupider" is a word.

Is Stupider (Stupidest) a Word?

Stupider is the comparative form of the adjective stupid. Because stupid is a two-syllable word, it’s comparative form can be created either by adding the suffix “-er” or by using more.

Dictionary.com ~ Stupid

adjective, stupider, stupidest.

1.lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2.characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless:a stupid question.
3.tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless:a stupid party.
4.annoying or irritating; troublesome:Turn off that stupid radio.
5.in a state of stupor; stupefied:stupid from fatigue.
6. Slang. excellent; terrific.

noun
7.Informal. a stupid person.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

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?

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.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

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



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.



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.

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.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Anything not in the text of an EO is irrevalent

Conservatives have been saying for a while that courts should factor in "original intent" when interpreting the Constitution. Here, you say it doesn't matter. Which is it?
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Are you going to show me where in the EO it targets a specific religion? Or are you going ignore the fact that it doesn't?

And yes, "stupider" is a word.

Is Stupider (Stupidest) a Word?



Dictionary.com ~ Stupid

It is the stupider word. I always learned that "more stupid" was correcter. So I was wrong.

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?
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

It is the stupider word. I always learned that "more stupid" was correcter. So I was wrong.

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?

thats correct intent does not matter, the court is to base its decision on the EO's text, not what trump or anyone else said of the EO.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

thats correct intent does not matter, the court is to base its decision on the EO's text, not what trump or anyone else said of the EO.

So then it doesn't matter on the Constitution either?
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So then it doesn't matter on the Constitution either?

what i stated is that the court cannot rule based on hear-say, they must rule based on what the EO states in its text.


as far as the travel ban it is a political question not a constitutional one and the court has no authority to even hear the case.


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).
 
Last edited:
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

It is a ban... YES.
It's a travel ban. It's not a muslim ban

So what is the travel ban against? What people are a threat to the US?
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

what i stated is that the court cannot rule based on hear-say, they must rule based on what the EO states in its text.


as far as the travel ban it is a political question not a constitutional one and the court has no authority to even hear the case.


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).

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.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

thats correct intent does not matter, the court is to base its decision on the EO's text, not what trump or anyone else said of the EO.

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.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I don't see it that way. But, nice attempt at avoiding the theme of the thread, which does compare the Right's attack on the 1st to the Left's attack on the 2nd.

BTW, what if the ban affects American citizens whose relatives are trying to immigrate here from Trump's Muslim banned countries? Do they not count in your world?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom