Judge Over Rules Trump

[Go-Fly]

Judge over rules Trump on his week-old executive order temporary barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.:eek

 

[HST4ME]

Thatz going to go over well.

 

[Go-Fly]

I think it's great. Shows how we have taken away the voice of the people and give it to one person, who we didn't elect to represent us.

 

[squeezer]

I think it's great. Shows how we have taken away the voice of the people and give it to one person, who we didn't elect to represent us.

Exactly!

That's why the judge had to step in...

 

[Sandlord]

it wont last long

 

[Outdrive1]

I think it's great. Shows how we have taken away the voice of the people and give it to one person, who we didn't elect to represent us.

That's why we have checks and balances. Being the majority doesn't make something constitutional. I'm not even talking about this issue, I'm saying in general. It's up to courts to decide if it is. I imagine this will end up in the Supreme Court.

 

[HST4ME]

Too bad the same didn't happen with O'care. But that is a different side of the fence I suppose.:rolleyes

 

[wsuwrhr]

That's why we have checks and balances. Being the majority doesn't make something constitutional. I'm not even talking about this issue, I'm saying in general. It's up to courts to decide if it is. I imagine this will end up in the Supreme Court.

Checks and balances is what makes our country so great.

 

[westair]

This only allows people already with a visa to get in ...... and Trump seems pretty confident it will be overturned.

 

[Singleton]

This only allows people already with a visa to get in ...... and Trump seems pretty confident it will be overturned.

While I agree with what Trump is trying to do. IMO if you already have an approved Visa you should be allowed to enter. The hold is to revise the process and you can't fault those who already applied and got approved. Yes this increases the risk and I am not happy about that, but the rules and venting process should of been reviewed and updated years ago.

 

[Paul65k]

That's why we have checks and balances. Being the majority doesn't make something constitutional. I'm not even talking about this issue, I'm saying in general. It's up to courts to decide if it is. I imagine this will end up in the Supreme Court.

Checks and balances is what makes our country so great.

Yup....this is exactly the reason people elected Trump..........it was ALL about the Supreme Court

 

[mjc]

I am still waiting for the unconstitutional part to be explained to me

 

[500bbc]

I am still waiting for the unconstitutional part to be explained to me

Libs don't like it, ergo unconstitutional, divisive and a recruitment tool for ISIS.

:lmao

Tard logic:

mooselump scum bag denied access to the US until he's fully vetted.
Tards say the mooselump will now join ISIS rape little girls and cut their heads off because Trump said pussy.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

I am still waiting for the unconstitutional part to be explained to me

He didn't find it unconstitutional, he issued a Temporary Restraining Order which stops the enforcement of the EO until such time as it can be judged by the courts.

 

[500bbc]

Too bad the same didn't happen with O'care. But that is a different side of the fence I suppose.:rolleyes

If you like your terrorist you can welcome your terrorist.

 

[Bobby V]

That's why we have checks and balances. Being the majority doesn't make something constitutional. I'm not even talking about this issue, I'm saying in general. It's up to courts to decide if it is. I imagine this will end up in the Supreme Court.

Yep. Trump can't fire the judge like he did with the AG. Who was days away from being replaced anyway. :rolleyes

 

[AzGeo]

you need to look back at Carter and Obama, who did EXACTLY THE SAME THING, as Trump has done here .

All 3 have legally put 'travel restrictions' on selected groups of people coming to the USA .

So when your 'Liberal Judge', is overturned, don't cry about 'overreach', just look to your own history .

Do you 'refugee lovers' care at all about SAFETY, or are you just CRYING because you didn't get your way ?

 

[Wakebrdr94]

you need to look back at Carter and Obama, who did EXACTLY THE SAME THING, as Trump has done here .

All 3 have legally put 'travel restrictions' on selected groups of people coming to the USA .

So when your 'Liberal Judge', is overturned, don't cry about 'overreach', just look to your own history .

Do you 'refugee lovers' care at all about SAFETY, or are you just CRYING because you didn't get your way ?

 

[regor]

Time to play by the rules?!!!!! :rotflmao: :finger

Once were done removing all traces of the traitor and his ilk, we will think about it.

 

[spectras only]

Yeah let anyone with a visa in. Like that will make you safe.

News flash> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ry-gunfire-france-attack-terror-a7560721.html

Paris prosecutor Francois Molins identified the 29-year-old Egyptian national who had arrived in the capital on 26 January after acquiring a one-month tourist visa in Dubai.

 

[500bbc]

Yeah let anyone with a visa in. Like that will make you safe.

News flash> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ry-gunfire-france-attack-terror-a7560721.html

Paris prosecutor Francois Molins identified the 29-year-old Egyptian national who had arrived in the capital on 26 January after acquiring a one-month tourist visa in Dubai.

That's divisive!

 

[t&y]

I think it's great. Shows how we have taken away the voice of the people and give it to one person, who we didn't elect to represent us.

Absolutely right. That Federal Judge does not represent "Us".

 

[spectras only]

Just a reminder for the bleeding hearts here. I've been waiting for eight months, interviewed and back ground checked while in a refugee camp in Italy, before Canada issued a visa for me:thumbsup. The large number of US citizens falling for the fear mongering and hysteria created by the media and celebs, they need to get on with their lives. They must also stay the fuck away from Facebook politicking, it's not healty for friends and family. While here on RDP,things are still smooth I'm not surprised that, certain websites don't allow a political section.

 

[t&y]

[/URL]

Maybe Trump figured since all the Libtards seemed to approve of Executive Orders under Obummer, it would be a way to connect with them under his presidency :lmao

 

[t&y]

Just a reminder for the bleeding hearts here. I've been waiting for eight months, interviewed and back ground checked while in a refugee camp in Italy, before Canada issued a visa for me:thumbsup. The large number of US citizens falling for the fear mongering and hysteria created by the media and celebs, they need to get on with their lives. They must also stay the fuck away from Facebook politicking, it's not healty for friends and family. While here on RDP,things are still smooth I'm not surprised that, certain websites don't allow a political section.

Past or present? I thought you had been a Canadian citizen for awhile.

 

[spectras only]

Past or present? I thought you had been a Canadian citizen for awhile.

I escaped from Hungary through Yugoslavia in 1970. My older brother fought the ruskis during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, placed my entire family on black list, barring to travel any western countries.

Ps; the CIA. Interpol had representatives in the Italian camps to proccess refugees.My mugshot and fingerprints are in canadian archives.

 

[t&y]

I escaped from Hungary through Yugoslavia in 1970. My older brother fought the ruskis during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, placed my entire family on black list, barring to travel any western countries.

Damnit... Those Russians have their hands in everything..lol Interesting story, glad you made it safely. Just curious, why did you go to Canada over the U.S.? This is all before I was born by the way:grumble:

 

[spectras only]

First of all, I could have immigrated to the States if wanted too. I've heard and seen lots of pictures about Canada from then girlfriend who's father lived in North Vancouver. Her father left her and her Mom during the uprise in 1956. She could get a visiting visa in the mid 60's [ she and her Mom together could not of course ] and visited him twice. When I started the planning of leaving Hungary one way or other, she couldn't leave her mom behind to join me so i left with a friend who ended up in Sweden.
I could write a book on my endeavours but it would be too long to write bits of it here.

 

[AzGeo]

PLEASE don't forget that EVERYONE warned Harry Reid (both GOP and DEMS!) that if HE passed and started using 'The Nuclear Option', the DEMS may regret it .

I think when Ol' Harry got hit in the eye, it happened more like "a barbell on the neck", kind of GYM ACCIDENT, than the story he told .............. HA HA

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Absolutely right. That Federal Judge does not represent "Us".

You're right, they represent the law, ideally without bias or prejudice.

It's up to the people to elect representatives that don't write stupid laws or orders.

 

[wsuwrhr]

You're right, they represent the law, ideally without bias or prejudice.

It's up to the people to elect representatives that don't write stupid laws or orders.

Ideally. Noted.

 

[was thatguy]

Isn't this the same bow tie wearing idiot that ruled against the Seattle PD a while ago, and based his decision on statistics he heard on the MSM?
I remember him, he actually said "black lives matter" from the bench.

 

[4Waters]

He didn't find it unconstitutional, he issued a Temporary Restraining Order which stops the enforcement of the EO until such time as it can be judged by the courts.

The libitard protesters are crying and saying it's unconstitutional, what they are forgetting is that they are not US citizens they are refugees so they have no constitutional rights at all. We can't afford to rescue the world.

 

[530RL]

The libitard protesters are crying and saying it's unconstitutional, what they are forgetting is that they are not US citizens they are refugees so they have no constitutional rights at all. We can't afford to rescue the world.

I agree we can't afford to rescue the world but refugees do have Constitutional rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.



"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[SBMech]

I agree we can't afford to rescue the world but refugees do have Constitutional rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.



"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A perfect reason not to let ANY OTHER REFUGEES IN.

A perfect reason TO KICK ALL ILLEGALS OUT.

Thanks for adding to the fire...:thumbup:

Honestly though, there has to be a clause against it being true for criminals, that makes all illegals not eligible, since they are breaking the law just being here.

 

[thetub]

I agree we can't afford to rescue the world but refugees do have Constitutional rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.



"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I guess its how you interpret it?
what is "without due process of law" ?
what is the law regarding this?

 

[4Waters]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Here is the 14th ammendment first line "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" does not say anything about people outside the US trying to get in.

 

[AzGeo]

I agree we can't afford to rescue the world but refugees do have Constitutional rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.



"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

WHY didn't you '"quote" the whole paragraph ? Because it separates Citizens (born or naturalized) from 'any person within its jurisdictions' ?

CITIZENS have RIGHTS that 'visitors, illegals, and unrestored felons' do not have .

The part about, 'all persons within its jurisdictions', has to do with non-citizens having a right to all the powers of DUE PROCESS, and not that they have EQUAL RIGHTS as CITIZENS .

If you are going to post SOME why not post ALL of the information YOU QUOTE ?

I guess you want to be the next Liberal Supreme Court Justice, because that is exactly how they would have framed their point .


SEE POST 37 ^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[spectras only]

I agree we can't afford to rescue the world but refugees do have Constitutional rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.



"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

.

I know nada/zilch of the US Constitution, but does it even say the word illegals or refugees anywhere in the context? Was the word refugees even used when the constitution was written?

 

[AzGeo]

.

I know nada/zilch of the US Constitution, but does it even say the word illegals or refugees anywhere in the context? Was the word refugees even used when the constitution were written?

No it does not use those terms, but his "quote" was edited to give the impression that "everyone standing within the borders of the USA are (by the 14th amendment) given EQUAL RIGHTS" .

That is just not true ..........

 

[spectras only]

No it does not use those terms, but his "quote" was edited to give the impression that "everyone standing within the borders of the USA are (by the 14th amendment) given EQUAL RIGHTS" .

That is just not true ..........

I know what he did there just want it to hear from him showing proof. If he can't, it's BS and just shit stirring at best.

 

[thetub]

pretzel man at it again...

 

[AzGeo]

If he had offered the whole relevant text, (as Mr 4 Waters did) you could read the 'differences' between 'citizens' and 'noncitizens' . Refugees, illegals, travelers with papers, unrestored felons would be classified as 'non-citizens' or without full citizenship rights .

This is a MAJOR PROBLEM between the right and the left, the left repeatedly tries to CHANGE the meaning and giving 'citizenship rights' to anyone standing inside the USA . It's not correct .

People who come into the USA illegally DO NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP nor the RIGHTS that go along with it . FIRST, they have violated a federal law, coming in illegally . Second, they have (by the 14th ) only DUE PROCESS in any legal matters, their persons and their personal property are also protected under that due process, nothing more .



My spell check is now having difficulty with the word (s) non - citizen and noncitizen .

 

[Grandpa mac]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...s-known-as-a-mainstream-republican/ar-AAmCxR4

 

[Go-Fly]

You don't think Trump knows politics. This executive order signed by our president will turn out to be a stepping stone when the next terrorist attack hits the US. Trump has inside intelligence reports that the courts don't have. Just like Bush, that knew 9/11 was coming, sat on his hands and did nothing. Trump is fighting for the safety of the American people with great exposure. To fix a problem you need to start. People will change their tone when we see dead bodies on CNN, right here on U.S. soil. You haven't seen the hate and name calling until we discover that we still can't protect our women and children.

 

[SNiC Jet]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...s-known-as-a-mainstream-republican/ar-AAmCxR4

MSN Prime Account required to view.....

 

[Wakebrdr94]

If he had offered the whole relevant text, (as Mr 4 Waters did) you could read the 'differences' between 'citizens' and 'noncitizens' . Refugees, illegals, travelers with papers, unrestored felons would be classified as 'non-citizens' or without full citizenship rights .

This is a MAJOR PROBLEM between the right and the left, the left repeatedly tries to CHANGE the meaning and giving 'citizenship rights' to anyone standing inside the USA . It's not correct .

People who come into the USA illegally DO NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP nor the RIGHTS that go along with it . FIRST, they have violated a federal law, coming in illegally . Second, they have (by the 14th ) only DUE PROCESS in any legal matters, their persons and their personal property are also protected under that due process, nothing more .



My spell check is now having difficulty with the word (s) non - citizen and noncitizen .

The problem is, to the portion you are referencing, is that the term "any person" is used instead of "any citizen". It does not separate illegal or not. The founders used the term "citizen" when saying no state shall abridge the privileges, but uses the term "any person" in the next line. Not deny "ANY PERSON" within its jurisdiction...

I see your point, but if taken literally, it does not separate the difference



Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[SNiC Jet]

​

 

[530RL]

.

I know nada/zilch of the US Constitution, but does it even say the word illegals or refugees anywhere in the context? Was the word refugees even used when the constitution was written?

I know what he did there just want it to hear from him showing proof. If he can't, it's BS and just shit stirring at best.

I don't remember it using those terms.

If people want to get real technical all rights were defined in the US declaration of independence as being self evident and unalienable. Every human who exists has these rights, it has nothing at all to do with the US constitution.

The US Constitution technically has no rights for any person. What it has is a list of instructions and limits on Government, some specifically enumerated subsequent to its original signing, to ensure the self evident rights remain unalienable. The 9th amendment specifically states this concept,

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Neither the Bill or Rights nor any part of the Constitution is a limited list of rights and should not be used to construe or disparage any other rights, which are always held by the people. And since all rights are self evident and unalienable, this means mere existence is enough to obtain rights.

The libitard protesters are crying and saying it's unconstitutional, what they are forgetting is that they are not US citizens they are refugees so they have no constitutional rights at all. We can't afford to rescue the world.

This is the statement that I respectfully disagreed with, specifically that they "have no constitutional rights at all". Every person in the world has these rights, as they are unalienable, but the US is only charged to enforce them on those which are under its jurisdiction, which is how the 14th amendment has repeatedly been interpreted.

To the extent 4Waters was talking solely about people who have not yet been granted a green card or a visa, I would agree that they have little to no standing to get into the courts for such unalienable rights and as a result, they effectively have little or no standing to be provided the protections of the Constitution. In essence, they have such rights, but no one cares, as he rightfully states, we can't take care of everyone. Further, none of the rulings I have read to date refer to someone who has never been granted a valid visa or green card subsequent to vetting. They do however address refugees and non-citizens who have been granted validly vetted visas and green cards.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Here is the 14th ammendment first line "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" does not say anything about people outside the US trying to get in.

The part I have highlighted I agree with under the assumption that they are not under its' "jurisdiction". The Legislative branch can write laws that define who can and can not get in. The issue is that refugees or legally resident non-citizens currently here, or who has been here and traveled home under a valid visa with the intention of returning, have historically been deemed to be "subject to the jurisdiction".

As I have previously stated, I think the idea of enhancing the vetting of people entering this country is a good idea. It should just be done legally and if the Administration would have "vetted" this order a little better they could have easily have done it without running into the challenges they are running into now.

 

[Wakebrdr94]

​