Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[shimerra]

Quite the contrary. It's an admission of what is being done to me, if anything. I, however, would never call anyone a troll, or any other name, since it's against forum rules.

What I meant was, since you don't want to engage in actual sharing of ideas, this back and forth may as well be fun at least.

You still have yet to tell me what you think about the topic, or what you think about what I think about the topic. This is not an actual discussion. We are literally failing at basic human communication.

Really? Cause from the outside it looks like you made a bullshit claim, couldn't back it up, and when asked to back it up started pissing and whining about people expecting you to do a basic coverstional courtesy and support your claim and you blaming them for your inability to do so.


I can say for a fact that no not all prominent legal minds agree with our assertions because my girlfriend happens to be in law school and at the many events where I've talked to former and standing judges there's a lot of critic for the. Hell even read an email she got from the dean, a consitional law prof, where her school was setting up a volunteer effort for students to help people fucked by his pointless ban stressing it's lack of a constitutional basis. I'm sure you'll go to sleep feeling I made that all up and that's okay. I'll let others do the 2 second google search to debunk your claim. Damn posting from phones.

[Tijuana]

Really? Cause from the outside it looks like you made a bullshit claim, couldn't back it up, and when asked to back it up started pissing and whining about people expecting you to do a basic coverstional courtesy and support your claim and you blaming them for your inability to do so.


I can say for a fact that no not all prominent legal minds agree with our assertions because my girlfriend happens to be in law school and at the many events where I've talked to former and standing judges there's a lot of critic for the. Hell even read an email she got from the dean, a consitional law prof, where her school was setting up a volunteer effort for students to help people fucked by his pointless ban stressing it's lack of a constitutional basis. I'm sure you'll go to sleep feeling I made that all up and that's okay. I'll let others do the 2 second google search to debunk your claim. Damn posting from phones.

BREAKING NEWS: UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS ARE LIBERAL AF

You guys keep telling me I am wrong but, you never say why. Tell me where you disagree. Read the relevant law, and show me where it DOESN'T say the US president can deny access to any group, at any time, for as long as they see fit.

Set the moral issue aside. Look at the law. I don't even like the EO, I'm just saying it's legal. Show me where in the law, that the sweeping powers awarded to the president, are limited in any way.

[Garnier Fructis]

The 1st and 14th amendment - in, fact, the entire US Constitution - do NOT APPLY TO NON-US CITIZENS.

hence, you "argument" is completely and totally moot.

This is hilariously wrong. I must have missed the part where legal residents other than citizens don't have the right to free speech and don't have a right to due process.

And, all things considered, I'm more inclined to believe that this isn't just a hasty error but a sign that you're simply assuming things.

[Deleted]

This is hilariously wrong. I must have missed the part where legal residents other than citizens don't have the right to free speech and don't have a right to due process.

And, all things considered, I'm more inclined to believe that this isn't just a hasty error but a sign that you're simply assuming things.

Legal residents - aka, green card holders - are for all intents and purposes considered US citizens when it comes to rights.

Wow, I didn't think I needed to spell that out when I said what I did.

I find the alt-left to be exceedingly pedantic.

[Matchles]

Legal residents - aka, green card holders - are for all intents and purposes considered US citizens when it comes to rights.

Wow, I didn't think I needed to spell that out when I said what I did.

I find the alt-left to be exceedingly pedantic.

Except it doesn't only apply to green card holders and legal workers. The Supreme Court has found rights for undocumented or illegal aliens in many instances. In fact, it is fairly clear on the face of the 14th Amendment.

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.

Emphasis mine. Clearly it applies to all people.

[Breccia]

My point is that there is no prior precedent for the US courts extending the bill of rights to a non-citizen, non-alien; to a person who has no standing with our courts.

I believe this to be factually false. If I am copying this link correctly, this PDG from Georgetown Law School will point out in excruciating detail exactly how and why. If not, this summary piece should do the job.

The Constitution in many places restricts what the government can do. It does not always say to whom it can't do it.

There is no prior precedent for seeking intent

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*deep breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you just honestly say that there has never been a legal case where intent mattered? Because I'm fairly sure words like "conspiracy" "attempted murder" and "motive" disagree with you in, likely, thousands upon thousands of cases.

Even if you meant this specific case, my original point remains. The WH withdrawing their appeal -- which they only did AFTER the 9th Court of Appeals refused to hear the case anyhow, so that doesn't count -- does not vacate the ruling. The ruling was made, it was not challenged. That's precedent.

However, Justice Department lawyers had previously asked the 9th Circuit to vacate the ruling a three-judge panel issued last month, refusing to stay Robart's order. Now, that decision will remain on the books as a precedent, unless overturned by a larger group of 9th Circuit judges.

The fact that you disagree with it is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys keep telling me I am wrong but, you never say why.

I'm moderately certain the court case was pretty specific. I'm still taking a federal judge's opinion on the subject over yours. And I, at least, was very specific as to the why. I got links and everything.

[Tijuana]

I believe this to be factually false. If I am copying this link correctly, this PDG from Georgetown Law School will point out in excruciating detail exactly how and why. If not, this summary piece should do the job.

The Constitution in many places restricts what the government can do. It does not always say to whom it can't do it.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*deep breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you just honestly say that there has never been a legal case where intent mattered? Because I'm fairly sure words like "conspiracy" "attempted murder" and "motive" disagree with you in, likely, thousands upon thousands of cases.

Even if you meant this specific case, my original point remains. The WH withdrawing their appeal -- which they only did AFTER the 9th Court of Appeals refused to hear the case anyhow, so that doesn't count -- does not vacate the ruling. The ruling was made, it was not challenged. That's precedent.

However, Justice Department lawyers had previously asked the 9th Circuit to vacate the ruling a three-judge panel issued last month, refusing to stay Robart's order. Now, that decision will remain on the books as a precedent, unless overturned by a larger group of 9th Circuit judges.

The fact that you disagree with it is irrelevant.

I'm not reading a 24 page document dude. Summarize it, or make your own point.

You clipped half my statement, then straw manned the remainder. You then apply a wildly irrelevant context to what I said: a criminal case. What on earth does a criminal case have to do with striking down law by the judiciary. What the actual fuck are you on about?

Even though you can just re-read what I said, let me restate it for you in a different way. What I am saying, is that the only instances, in the matter of striking down laws, where intent is examined, is when the law is unclear. There is no prior precedent, in US law, for using a judges opinion of the intent of the law, as a means to derive different meaning than what is actually written in the law. Saying, "No, what you really mean is xyz, even though the law reads abc", is not an actual thing that is done. This would be a historic first, in that regard. The obvious Pandora's box this opens, is sweeping. This would mean you could take anyone's words and derive some hidden intent, and then use that to strike down a law. This is akin to saying that since Obama said you could keep your doctor, that the ACA should be struck down.

You pointing to precedent of the prior EO is not valid. For one, the two EOs were challenged on wholly different grounds. Furthermore, precedent is not established by judicial challenges, but by judicial DECISIONS. The prior EO was in fact never decided upon, as the appeal was dropped.

[Endus]

I'm sorry but no. Just...no. Current precedent DOES NOT grant constitutional rights to all persons. You must be either a citizen, or be in our country, or have previously been in our country to be granted access to our courts. This is one of the key elements that makes this judicial decision laughable on it's face.

The 1st and 14th amendment - in, fact, the entire US Constitution - do NOT APPLY TO NON-US CITIZENS.

Completely incorrect. This is precedent that dates back to the 19th Century. See US v. Wong Kim Ark, for instance. If the clause in the Constitution refers to "citizens" specifically, it is restricted to citizens alone, but any clause that refers to "persons" or any such more generic term, those apply to everyone under or within US jurisdiction, and that includes when evaluating applications to immigrate, since those applications are under US jurisdiction, even if the individual applying is not on US soil.

This is all REALLY legally clear and uncontested. You two are flat-out wrong, here.

BREAKING NEWS: UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS ARE LIBERAL AF

You guys keep telling me I am wrong but, you never say why. Tell me where you disagree. Read the relevant law, and show me where it DOESN'T say the US president can deny access to any group, at any time, for as long as they see fit.

Set the moral issue aside. Look at the law. I don't even like the EO, I'm just saying it's legal. Show me where in the law, that the sweeping powers awarded to the president, are limited in any way.

The Constitution.

Because laws that contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional, unenforceable, and are to be ignored. Because the Constitution overrules them.

[Breccia]

I'm not reading a 24 page document dude.

Then you should probably stop arguing about it. You have just admitted your opinions have no basis in fact or evidence, and as such, are no longer worth making public. I'm not sure that was your strongest approach, just so we're clear.

[Tijuana]

Completely incorrect. This is precedent that dates back to the 19th Century. See US v. Wong Kim Ark, for instance. If the clause in the Constitution refers to "citizens" specifically, it is restricted to citizens alone, but any clause that refers to "persons" or any such more generic term, those apply to everyone under or within US jurisdiction, and that includes when evaluating applications to immigrate, since those applications are under US jurisdiction, even if the individual applying is not on US soil.

This is all REALLY legally clear and uncontested. You two are flat-out wrong, here.



The Constitution.

Because laws that contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional, unenforceable, and are to be ignored. Because the Constitution overrules them.

So, you above all others, have knowledge the rest of us don't? Because standing is a thing. For example, one judge rules in the first ban that the complainant did not have standing to bring the case. It is unprecedented, in US legal history, for the full rights of the constitution to be applied to a person or entity with no standing. The case you presented, is about a US citizen. How is that the same standing as a person who has never been here, and has had no contact with our government?

I sort of doubt you have any education in regards to the US constitution, as you hail from Canadia. There are basic concepts that you seem to be completely lost on, no offense.

[Breccia]

You know what, I'm not done with you yet.

You clipped half my statement, then straw manned the remainder.

Nope. First I asked if you were talking generically -- in which case, you are laughably false -- and then I asked if you meant specifically, in which case, I pointed out that the decision on the first case is the best precedent you could ever possibly get. The appeal was denied before it was withdrawn, and even if it wasn't, withdrawing your appeal does not vacate the decision. Which you never read. That's now how law works. That's never been how law works.

"You have been found guilty."
"I choose not to appeal the decision. Therefore, that vacates your ruling and it has no legal weight. I'm a free man bitch!"

Do you honestly think that withdrawing an appeal means the decision, which you never read, has no weight? I very specifically linked how it did. I'm guessing you didn't read that, either.

What I am saying, is that the only instances, in the matter of striking down laws, where intent is examined, is when the law is unclear.

I'd like to see the source on that. I'm guessing you have one.

There is no prior precedent, in US law, for using a judges opinion of the intent of the law, as a means to derive different meaning than what is actually written in the law.

I'm fairly sure that's false too. See also: Voter ID laws. State voter ID laws have been challenged for things not spelled out in the law, because the law never spells out "this makes it harder for poor/black/etc people to vote" because that'd be a stupid fucking thing to put in the law. I'll cite this one, but you can easily find more.

[Tijuana]

Then you should probably stop arguing about it. You have just admitted your opinions have no basis in fact or evidence, and as such, are no longer worth making public. I'm not sure that was your strongest approach, just so we're clear.

I admitted nothing of the sort. If you want to substitute 24 fucking pages of another persons words, you are in fact not having a discussion. The notion that we should all read any document you dig up, and then argue against that, instead of your own words, is ridiculous. If you can't understand the topic enough, to make your own point, or to even summarize what you ask us to read, then you are not contributing to the discussion.

[Breccia]

I sort of doubt you have any education in regards to the US constitution, as you hail from Canadia. There are basic concepts that you seem to be completely lost on, no offense.

I am from America, and I cited Georgetown Law on the subject. Are they from Canada too?

At what point will you admit that you are just flat-out wrong? Or was your use of "the full rights of the constitution" a Spicer-like way of moving the goalposts? Because the issue here is, and remains, what the government can't do, regardless of the citizenship of the people they're trying to do it to. True, it doesn't apply to the Second Amendment, but that's not the issue here, it is?

Again, please actually read the decision, read the discussion, before you dig yourself further into this hole you're in. You're not winning this one.

- - - Updated - - -

I admitted nothing of the sort.

*ahem*

I'm not reading a 24 page document dude.

The decision in question was just as long.

Your move.

[Endus]

So, you above all others, have knowledge the rest of us don't?

No, I'm speaking about basic concepts of civics. Pretty much everyone who knows much of anything about the US legal system knows this stuff.

Because standing is a thing. For example, one judge rules in the first ban that the complainant did not have standing to bring the case. It is unprecedented, in US legal history, for the full rights of the constitution to be applied to a person or entity with no standing.

The case you presented, is about a US citizen. How is that the same standing as a person who has never been here, and has had no contact with our government?

Grats on not reading through the case to see the precedent that I was talking about.

Specifically, this exerpt speaks to what you're so wrong about;

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says,

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.


These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

This has been the recognized precedent for well over a century, under US law. Not a single person alive has ever lived in an era when this wasn't true. The Constitution applies to every single person within US jurisdiction. Not just citizens. Not just on US soil.

[Deleted]

Completely incorrect. This is precedent that dates back to the 19th Century. See US v. Wong Kim Ark, for instance. If the clause in the Constitution refers to "citizens" specifically, it is restricted to citizens alone, but any clause that refers to "persons" or any such more generic term, those apply to everyone under or within US jurisdiction, and that includes when evaluating applications to immigrate, since those applications are under US jurisdiction, even if the individual applying is not on US soil.

Get back to me after the SCOTUS decision (if it even comes to that) and we will see who is "flat-out wrong". Pretty sure that will be you, as usual.

[Tijuana]

No, I'm speaking about basic concepts of civics. Pretty much everyone who knows much of anything about the US legal system knows this stuff.



Grats on not reading through the case to see the precedent that I was talking about.

Specifically, this exerpt speaks to what you're so wrong about;

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says,

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.


These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

This has been the recognized precedent for well over a century, under US law. Not a single person alive has ever lived in an era when this wasn't true. The Constitution applies to every single person within US jurisdiction. Not just citizens. Not just on US soil.

That is exactly what I have said, repeatedly. In order to GAIN standing, you would have to have had some interaction with the US government. This leaves out MOST of the humans on this planet.

What you just posted completely makes my case: "These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."

The judges are striking this EO down on the grounds that these protections apply to ALL humans, not just those who have standing with the US government.

[araine]

Who wants to put money on Trump connecting this to Obama's "fake" Hawaiian birth certificate somehow?

Dont give him any ideas, he is getting desperate as is and this might mean he can spin his shit storm for another week or two

- - - Updated - - -

That is exactly what I have said, repeatedly. In order to GAIN standing, you would have to have had some interaction with the US government. This leaves out MOST of the humans on this planet.

What you just posted completely makes my case: "These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction."

The judges are striking this EO down on the grounds that these protections apply to ALL humans, not just those who have standing with the US government.

Exactly the constitution dictates how we are to operate vs all people in this regard nowhere in the 14th amendment does it say it applies to US citizens only when it comes to executing laws and things in this country.

It is clear cut that the constitution applies to all people upon who the US government looks to create laws and rulings about.

- - - Updated - - -

Get back to me after the SCOTUS decision (if it even comes to that) and we will see who is "flat-out wrong". Pretty sure that will be you, as usual.

You do know a 4-4 tie means the lower courts decision stands. And if they overturn this we get a wonderful tool on the left in making sure we can block out right wingers from traveling into the country as well. be careful for what you are wishing for since we will take it and slam it against right wingers EVERY DAMN TIME we get a chance down the road.

[Jastall]

Get back to me after the SCOTUS decision (if it even comes to that) and we will see who is "flat-out wrong". Pretty sure that will be you, as usual.

If you truly believe a 4-4 split SCOTUS is going to even hear this, let alone rule in favor of Trump in such a controversial setting, I want some of what you're smoking.

[Breccia]

The judges are striking this EO down on the grounds that these protections apply to ALL humans, not just those who have standing with the US government.

See, this is the trouble you get into when you don't read the legally-binding decision that is now precedent, but was 24-plus pages so you didn't read it.

The ruling said many, many things. But some of what it said, as we've been trying to tell you, is that the government can't discriminate based on religion. Which the original EO did, and the new one still does, based on Trump's proven words and actions. You can disagree, but that's what the decisions said. The fact that the government was discriminating only against non-citizens was cited, and the ruling was made anyhow.

Perhaps if I give you the page number, you'll look into it? It's nineteen. The 9th Circuit Court ruling was pretty specific about 5th Amendment rights and noncitizens, and discuss it in detail starting on page nineteen. The WH's appeal was denied before they withdrew it, so this finding is binding -- but hardly the first. Just the most relevant.

[Tijuana]

Dont give him any ideas, he is getting desperate as is and this might mean he can spin his shit storm for another week or two

- - - Updated - - -




Exactly the constitution dictates how we are to operate vs all people in this regard nowhere in the 14th amendment does it say it applies to US citizens only when it comes to executing laws and things in this country.

It is clear cut that the constitution applies to all people upon who the US government looks to create laws and rulings about.

- - - Updated - - -





You do know a 4-4 tie means the lower courts decision stands. And if they overturn this we get a wonderful tool on the left in making sure we can block out right wingers from traveling into the country as well. be careful for what you are wishing for since we will take it and slam it against right wingers EVERY DAMN TIME we get a chance down the road.

Correct. So how do you arrive at giving standing to say, a Syrian refugee that has never had contact with the US government? How does this hypothetical person have the rights of a citizen? If you give our rights to him, do you not also extend the 2nd amendment to all humans? Why only the first amendment? What about the 21st amendment?