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

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.

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

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

whateverdude said:

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

Click to expand...

Oh, now you're just not playing fair. Want me to say what the Left is doing is not a gun ban? :roll:

Your president, the Orange buffoon, said it was a Muslim ban long before he ever tried selling the idea that is was not a Muslim ban. It is, thanks to his silly decision to use that term in order to get elected, now definitely interpreted as a Muslim ban.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

whateverdude said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

calamity said:

Oh, now you're just not playing fair. Want me to say what the Left is doing is not a gun ban? :roll:

Your president, the Orange buffoon, said it was a Muslim ban long before he ever tried selling the idea that is was not a Muslim ban. It is, thanks to his silly decision to use that term in order to get elected, now definitely interpreted as a Muslim ban.

Click to expand...

What the left wants to do probably is a gun ban. That's their answer for everything.

You mean Trump? The guy I hate so much I literally wished a torturous death upon akin to the film "Hostel"? Yea.. "big fan" of him I am.
And maybe he did **** up by calling it a muslim ban in the past.

Doesnt' change that the bill, as it is written, is not a muslim ban

Trump is a stupid ****, so you're right there

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Skeptic Bob said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

calamity said:

Oh, now you're just not playing fair. Want me to say what the Left is doing is not a gun ban? :roll:

Your president, the Orange buffoon, said it was a Muslim ban long before he ever tried selling the idea that is was not a Muslim ban. It is, thanks to his silly decision to use that term in order to get elected, now definitely interpreted as a Muslim ban.

Click to expand...

Gun laws target guns. What about Trump's EO mentions Muslims?

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

whateverdude said:

What the left wants to do probably is a gun ban. That's their answer for everything.

You mean Trump? The guy I hate so much I literally wished a torturous death upon akin to the film "Hostel"? Yea.. "big fan" of him I am.
And maybe he did **** up by calling it a muslim ban in the past.

Doesnt' change that the bill, as it is written, is not a muslim ban

Trump is a stupid ****, so you're right there

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Kal'Stang said:

Gun laws target guns. What about Trump's EO mentions Muslims?

Click to expand...

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

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

We don't politically compromise Constitutional Rights.

Sorry.

I'm dead against this. Let the Court be the final arbitrator of the Constitution, and keep they dayem politicos hands off it! :doh

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

whateverdude said:

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

Click to expand...

Up until just three weeks ago his own website stated he was "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." That was in writing. Combine that with all the times he publically said the same thing.

Trump sabatoged himself by revealing his intent numerous times. That is what happens when you elect someone who doesn't have a filter between their mouth and brain. You only have Trump to blame for the failure of these EOs.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Skeptic Bob said:

Up until just three weeks ago his own website stated he was "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." That was in writing. Combine that with all the times he publically said the same thing.

Trump sabatoged himself by revealing his intent numerous times. That is what happens when you elect someone who doesn't have a filter between their mouth and brain. You only have Trump to blame for the failure of these EOs.

Click to expand...

We agree, but also disagree.
We agree that Trump is a ****ing idiot.
But I disagree that the courts would have supported the travel ban if he had not made that mistake.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Chomsky said:

We don't politically compromise Constitutional Rights.

Sorry.

I'm dead against this. Let the Court be the final arbitrator of the Constitution, and keep they dayem politicos hands off it! :doh

Click to expand...

I agree. But I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the travel ban itself

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

whateverdude said:

I agree. But I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the travel ban itself

Click to expand...

Of course you don't. And, guess what. The Left sees nothing unconstitutional with expanding background checks, putting restrictions on private guns sales and limiting the types of guns people can buy. See how that works?

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

calamity said:

Of course you don't. And, guess what. The Left sees nothing unconstitutional with expanding background checks, putting restrictions on private guns sales and limiting the types of guns people can buy. See how that works?

Click to expand...

I agree with the things you mentioned, mostly.
I doubt I'm as anti-gun as you.
However, I think there's probably more room for debate on the second amendment than this travel ban.
I don't think the stuff you mentioned is unconstitutional, but I could picture an actual debate on it

I don't see how this travel ban could possibly be interepreted as consitutional. I don't even see where there's a debate to be had on it.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

whateverdude said:

I agree with the things you mentioned, mostly.
I doubt I'm as anti-gun as you.
However, I think there's probably more room for debate on the second amendment than this travel ban.
I don't think the stuff you mentioned is unconstitutional, but I could picture an actual debate on it

I don't see how this travel ban could possibly be interepreted as consitutional. I don't even see where there's a debate to be had on it.

Click to expand...

I'm not anti-gun. I am, however, pro-making a point.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

calamity said:

I'm not anti-gun. I am, however, pro-making a point.

Click to expand...

I just think it's a false equivelency.
I can see how those gun control measures, even the ones I agree with, could create a constitutional conflict.
On the other hand, I don't think there's nearly as much a basis for calling the travel ban unconstitutional

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

whateverdude said:

I just think it's a false equivelency.
I can see how those gun control measures, even the ones I agree with, could create a constitutional conflict.
On the other hand, I don't think there's nearly as much a basis for calling the travel ban unconstitutional

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

calamity said:

Oh, now you're just not playing fair. Want me to say what the Left is doing is not a gun ban? :roll:

Your president, the Orange buffoon, said it was a Muslim ban long before he ever tried selling the idea that is was not a Muslim ban. It is, thanks to his silly decision to use that term in order to get elected, now definitely interpreted as a Muslim ban.

Click to expand...

If it was intended to be a muslim ban, why leave most muslim countries out of it?

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Slingshot Bob said:

If it was intended to be a muslim ban, why leave most muslim countries out of it?

Click to expand...

Ask Trump. I bet you don't get a straight answer.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

calamity said:

Ask Trump. I bet you don't get a straight answer.

Click to expand...

I was asking you....zzz zz

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

calamity said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Slingshot Bob said:

I was asking you....zzz zz

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

Anyone looking at the EO sees immediately that it is factually not about Muslims but that emotions and political populism have taken possession of the discussion.

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

calamity said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.