What would it take?

[Alvin Walton]

Islam is not a race.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You aren't a lawyer. JR is. That said, the cat is out of the bag thanks to dumbass Giuliani spilling the beans on the "Muslim ban".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a065a34624e3

You do realize he campaigned on banning Muslims?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...im-immigration





So yes, it is unconstitutional.

...

The order itself is not unconstitutional, what he campaigned on doesn't impact the constitunality of an order. But I'm not a constitutional lawyer (neither are you) so until a court holds it as unconstitutional or constitutional we will disagree.

[NC_Skins]

One problem with the firing is this:

s, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department.

So until somebody else is confirmed, no FISA warrants can be issued. We aren't sure Sessions will be confirmed. I seriously doubt any Democrat will vote for him with his background in racism.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Although at a higher level this is akin to the official who was fired for not validating gay marriages. Its all political theater. Yates was out in a week anyways when Sessions is approved so she took a stand.
Its not very shocking that an Obama hack wouldn't understand the concept of enforcing the law

She's sworn to uphold the law of the Constitution. If she thinks the executive order is unconstitutional, then it's her duty NOT to execute those actions. She's doing her job.

[punch it in]

Why cant all of you rightists see the difference this time around? When Obama was Pres all of you bitched. When Bush was Pres all of us bitched.
That is how it was for a long time.
This is completely different. This has left the "bitching" world of politics and entered into the "insane" world of politics.
It is not our fault that the insane one ran on your ticket.

[Alvin Walton]

Fish on!

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Fish on!

I knew it.

[JoeRedskin]

So, I have been looking at the Constitutionality of the Executive Order and what the Constitutional law folks are saying. The short answer is that, on its face, the travel ban is Constitutional and within the President delegated authority. However, the manner in which it is applied may be a violation of Constitutional due process / equal protection. As I understand it, it was on this basis that the federal district court granted a temporary stay.

This is a Presidential Order that is administering executive authority delegated him by Congress pursuant to federal immigration law. Further, the Executive Order covers only those countries specifically identified by Congress and the Obama administration as “countries of concern” that have been determined to have a "significant presence" of a foreign terrorist organization or to be a safe havens for terrorists.

Under current federal immigration law, the President has broad authority to prohibit people from entering the US:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens …
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

In addition, the countries to which the ban is applicable were specifically chosen based on prior Congressional and Executive action. The seven identified countries are from the list covered by "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" initially identified by Congress and, subsequently, supplemented by the Obama administration. The Bill was a bipartisan act that was signed into law by Obama in December 2015. It was passed overwhelmingly by Congress (407 – 19). Initially the law barred individuals “from Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, or those who have visited those countries in the last five years, from traveling to the United States without a visa.” In February 2016, , the Obama administration identified Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as “Countries of Concern” under the act and barred individuals from these countries as well from travelling to the US without a visa.

http://www.cnn.com/.../visa-waiver-p...use/index.html
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr158/text
https://www.dhs.gov/.../dhs-announces-further-travel...

In challenging the Order, it is almost unquestionably Constitutional as written but the Constitutionality of its actual application is much debated. Given that (1) the vast number of Muslim dominated countries are NOT on the list (including the largest – Indonesia); and (2) on its face, it is limited to "countries of concern" as identified by Obama’s Dept. of Homeland Security, I would suggest that the Order is facially Constitutional because it is specifically related to national security and not, strictly speaking, a “Muslim ban.”

Rather, the attacks on it that were – temporarily – successful attacked the actual application of the Order – deprivation of a property right without due process and deprivation of equal protection under the law. However, this due process/equal protection aspect can be remedied going forward since notice of the intended deprivation has, in fact, been given and all that need be implemented is a process to contest any individual ban. This does not require a full blown hearing/trial but need only allow the individual to be heard before a neutral decision maker.

[BaltimoreSkins]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/countri...cks-1485708300

Interesting read about the actual threat of terrorism faced by U.S. versus the "Countries of Concern" identified by Obama and banned by Trump.

[NC_Skins]

Some good news from the Trump administration.

https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-keep-int...opstories.html


Guess they needed some after the shelling they've been getting the past week.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Some good news from the Trump administration.



https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-keep-int...opstories.html





Guess they needed some after the shelling they've been getting the past week.

What a saint. Lol. If you read the fine print it still allows them to drink from the same water fountain or use the same pay phone.

[CRedskinsRule]

Trump has been a supporter of the LGBTQ community since before the election. That said the timing of.this is likely a direct shot at the republicans who are backing off supporting him.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

If Trump wants to use the presidential bully pulpit then tonight's SCOTUS announcement is just that. You have to think every prolife and prochoice person will be watching. If he wants to speak directly to the whole United States this is his moment.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[MTK]

It's gonna be huge, terrific, and big league.

[NC_Skins]

Talking about sinking their ship. Are they trying to kill their party? Go from condemning this shit to now supporting it? Based off what event? What facts? They aren't securing shit and they know it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/speaker-d...-politics.html

It's going to be a long 4 years.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Talking about sinking their ship. Are they trying to kill their party? Go from condemning this shit to now supporting it? Based off what event? What facts? They aren't securing shit and they know it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/speaker-d...-politics.html

It's going to be a long 4 years.

8

And then Ivanka does 8.