Federal Judge Rules Against Blocking Travel Ban EO

[Delana]

Because he explicitly said he was trying to ban "Muslims". We have many repeated and clear statements of intent on this. That intent matters.



If he'd spent the last year talking about his "Catholic ban", and then tried to ban people from Catholic-majority nations, yes, it would run afoul of the same issues.



The bias is yours. The President does not have ultimate authority over immigration. While he does have broad powers, he cannot violate the Constitution in the use of them.

I've asked this many times. I've never gotten an answer.

If Nazis considered themselves a religion, would it be illegal to ban immigration from Nazis? Is that not obviously madness?

If there can be an ideological test, it follows that there can be a religious test. Especially for Islam which has a law system they believe should apply to everyone.

[Orange Joe]

I've asked this many times. I've never gotten an answer.

If Nazis considered themselves a religion, would it be illegal to ban immigration from Nazis? Is that not obviously madness?

If there can be an ideological test, it follows that there can be a religious test. Especially for Islam which has a law system they believe should apply to everyone.

They would first have to pass a 3 part test to be considered a religion.

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-...t-and-religion

Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

[Orbitus]

I've asked this many times. I've never gotten an answer.

If Nazis considered themselves a religion, would it be illegal to ban immigration from Nazis? Is that not obviously madness?

If there can be an ideological test, it follows that there can be a religious test. Especially for Islam which has a law system they believe should apply to everyone.

You do realize, that for the longest time, Christianity and Catholicism also had a law system that was required to be followed in places such as Europe and places they conquered? The only reason that they don't have it now in these areas is because of democracy and their freedoms of religion and from religion. While their are current Christians that are trying to impose their laws on places like the US when they were trying to ban Gay Marriage and trying to overturn Roe V Wade.

[Delana]

You do realize, that for the longest time, Christianity and Catholicism also had a law system that was required to be followed in places such as Europe and places they conquered? The only reason that they don't have it now in these areas is because of democracy and their freedoms of religion and from religion. While their are current Christians that are trying to impose their laws on places like the US when they were trying to ban Gay Marriage and trying to overturn Roe V Wade.

Roe v. Wade is a philosophical argument. As is whether gays can "marry" is largely a matter of semantics. It's a debate over a cultural definition, as it were. I actually agree with the Left position on both, but there's a secular argument against. From an individualist/classical liberal perspective, even.

Even these laws are less brutal than "death to apostates" and honor killing. Maybe these positions moderate in time in the west. Maybe they don't. They WON'T if you 1.) Allow Muslim enclaves to establish their own Sharia courts and 2.) Not expect some degree of assimilation. Expecting assimilation is something more than a slap on the wrist every time some migrant has a "sexual emergency."

If you DON'T do this, you will ultimately not have a liberal democracy anywhere. I personally would like to continue living in one. It would be cool if my children might be able to live in one too.

I will note that you didn't address my question. Does the president have the authority to ban immigration to Nazis if they call themselves a religion?

[Kujako]

They have to be recognized as a religion, if they are then the First Amendment protects them. Just calling your beliefs a religion isn't enough to qualify.

And look up the Spanish Inquisition for an example of Christian religions killing "heretics". Tell me how that was resolved...

Nope. Only thing you need to be a "recognized religion" for is tax exempt status. Anything else can be argued in court. Many a pastafarian was allowed to wear his sacred head gear in a drivers license photo for example.

[Orange Joe]

I will note that you didn't address my question. Does the president have the authority to ban immigration to Nazis if they call themselves a religion?

I already answers this for you. You can't just call yourself a religion and it be so. You have to be recognized as a religion by the government in order to get those freedoms.

[Kujako]

Are you honestly telling me pastafarianism isn't a religion? They fit all the criteria. Nazism is a little harder unless you were a member of the SS, in which case it basically was a religion. So we couldn't stop you from coming in based on that, but we could most assuredly arrest you for other crimes upon your trying to gain entry. And that tax exempt part is basically what defines a recognized religion in the eyes of the courts... FOR INSTANCE, in response to your picture I raise you a court order to get a new license for madame pasta.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...708-story.html

I said it could be argued, not that it was clear cut. If Scientology can be a religion, everything is fair game.

[Endus]

The interpretation of the constitution is what the problem is. The president DOES have ultimate authority over immigration. He can shut it down if he wants to without reason.

Yet again, wildly incorrect. The President is not the "ultimate authority" in the USA. The Constitution reigns supreme. And the only groups that can change the Constitution are Congress, or the States themselves through conventions. Not the President.

The American system is deliberately set up so that no one has "ultimate authority[/i]. Whatever the President does, Congress or SCOTUS or the States can overrule. And he cannot issue orders that exceed the law.

All of this violating the constitution, where is it? Show us where in the constitution it is unconstitutional for a president to ban immigration from countries of potential threats?

1> He's been VERY clear that his intent was to ban Muslims.
2> Those countries haven't posed any significant threat, to begin with.

I've asked this many times. I've never gotten an answer.

If Nazis considered themselves a religion, would it be illegal to ban immigration from Nazis? Is that not obviously madness?

It's a frankly ridiculous comparison. It's like saying "but what if guns were bananas, would we need background checks to buy bananas?" to protest background check laws. This isn't how religions are defined at any level. You don't get to just declare yourself to be a religion.

This is why you don't get answers you like; because it's a nonsense question in the first place.

If there can be an ideological test, it follows that there can be a religious test.

There isn't even an "ideological test". And a religious test is explicitly forbidden under the Constitution.

[Logwyn]

And look up the Spanish Inquisition for an example of Christian religions killing "heretics". Tell me how that was resolved...

Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies abolished it by Royal Decree in 1834.

[Bearmount]

Yet again, someone posting about how someone is "wildly incorrect". The president does actually have ultimate authority over immigration. Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182. Read that and maybe you will understand why he can do this.

[Belize]

Yet again, someone posting about how someone is "wildly incorrect". The president does actually have ultimate authority over immigration. Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182. Read that and maybe you will understand why he can do this.

And the Courts do actually have the power to rule against the President's decision if they decide it is unconstitutional.

Read Article III Section 2 for the ruling powers of the Courts.

[Bearmount]

How is it unconstitutional?

[Orbitus]

Roe v. Wade is a philosophical argument. As is whether gays can "marry" is largely a matter of semantics. It's a debate over a cultural definition, as it were. I actually agree with the Left position on both, but there's a secular argument against. From an individualist/classical liberal perspective, even.

Even these laws are less brutal than "death to apostates" and honor killing. Maybe these positions moderate in time in the west. Maybe they don't. They WON'T if you 1.) Allow Muslim enclaves to establish their own Sharia courts and 2.) Not expect some degree of assimilation. Expecting assimilation is something more than a slap on the wrist every time some migrant has a "sexual emergency."

If you DON'T do this, you will ultimately not have a liberal democracy anywhere. I personally would like to continue living in one. It would be cool if my children might be able to live in one too.

I will note that you didn't address my question. Does the president have the authority to ban immigration to Nazis if they call themselves a religion?

No, if they Nazis were a religion, he couldn't ban them. But since they can't technically pass the Lemon test as someone else pointed out, they aren't a religion. Because, hell, right now we can't legally ban Nazis. Otherwise we wouldn't have all of these alt right, skinhead, neo-nazi groups in this country.

- - - Updated - - -

How is it unconstitutional?

Banning a religion from these countries, while giving a pass to the "minority religion" aka Christians in these countries, is against the 1st and 14th amendments.

[Endus]

Yet again, someone posting about how someone is "wildly incorrect". The president does actually have ultimate authority over immigration. Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182. Read that and maybe you will understand why he can do this.

In addition to Belize's comment, all the US Code is secondary to the Constitution, and when any legislation conflicts with that Constitution, it cannot be enforced.

The President may have broad, sweeping powers under the section you listed, but he can not restrict immigration on Constitutionally-protected grounds, like religion. It doesn't matter what the US Code says, because the Constitution clearly states that the government cannot discriminate in that way, in anything. And the Constitution, not the President, is the highest law in the land.

[Kujako]

They're recognized as being tax exempt by the government, something that took a very long time. I still don't think they're a religion, but that alone makes them one in court.

Only because they drowned the IRS in lay suits until the cried uncle. Why the IRS is the arbiter of religion I can't say.

[Paranoid Android]

In addition to Belize's comment, all the US Code is secondary to the Constitution, and when any legislation conflicts with that Constitution, it cannot be enforced.

The President may have broad, sweeping powers under the section you listed, but he can not restrict immigration on Constitutionally-protected grounds, like religion. It doesn't matter what the US Code says, because the Constitution clearly states that the government cannot discriminate in that way, in anything. And the Constitution, not the President, is the highest law in the land.

The only interesting hang up here is the judge hearing this from Trump's political speeches and surrogates as the dissent.

[Delana]

It's a frankly ridiculous comparison. It's like saying "but what if guns were bananas, would we need background checks to buy bananas?" to protest background check laws. This isn't how religions are defined at any level. You don't get to just declare yourself to be a religion.

This is why you don't get answers you like; because it's a nonsense question in the first place.



There isn't even an "ideological test". And a religious test is explicitly forbidden under the Constitution.

How is it a nonsense comparison? I contend that Islam is a dangerous ideology incompatible with the West when practiced literally. Certainly Wahabism is incompatible. Nazism, I think you'd agree, is also a dangerous ideology.

There were times after WWII that we preferentially took Jewish immigrants and refugees. I suppose this was against unconstitutional by your definition as well. It is, quite literally, a religious test.

- - - Updated - - -

No, if they Nazis were a religion, he couldn't ban them. But since they can't technically pass the Lemon test as someone else pointed out, they aren't a religion. Because, hell, right now we can't legally ban Nazis. Otherwise we wouldn't have all of these alt right, skinhead, neo-nazi groups in this country.

- - - Updated - - -



Banning a religion from these countries, while giving a pass to the "minority religion" aka Christians in these countries, is against the 1st and 14th amendments.

Do you really not see how we could be destroyed by this? Edrogan has called for it. It would be EASY. And we're sitting around arguing about whether it's nice to ban a religion.

Nobody's talking about banning Islamic IMMIGRANTS because we think they look funny. And nobody is suggesting any action at all against American Citizens. I don't know why you felt the need to draw a false equivalence between skinhead citizens, and immigrants from radical failed states. The former has an obvious right to be here. It's their country. The latter is asking to come. We kindly decline.

[Orbitus]

How is it a nonsense comparison? I contend that Islam is a dangerous ideology incompatible with the West when practiced literally. Certainly Wahabism is incompatible. Nazism, I think you'd agree, is also a dangerous ideology.

There were times after WWII that we preferentially took Jewish immigrants and refugees. I suppose this was against unconstitutional by your definition as well. It is, quite literally, a religious test.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you really not see how we could be destroyed by this? Edrogan has called for it. It would be EASY. And we're sitting around arguing about whether it's nice to ban a religion.

Nobody's talking about banning Islamic IMMIGRANTS because we think they look funny. And nobody is suggesting any action at all against American Citizens. I don't know why you felt the need to draw a false equivalence between skinhead citizens, and immigrants from radical failed states. The former has an obvious right to be here. It's their country. The latter is asking to come. We kindly decline.

Are you one of those people that think we don't vet people before they come over here? We are more likely to be destroyed by radical Christians than Muslims at the moment. Edrogan will be lucky to make it in his office before something happens to him.

[petej0]

In addition to Belize's comment, all the US Code is secondary to the Constitution, and when any legislation conflicts with that Constitution, it cannot be enforced.

The President may have broad, sweeping powers under the section you listed, but he can not restrict immigration on Constitutionally-protected grounds, like religion. It doesn't matter what the US Code says, because the Constitution clearly states that the government cannot discriminate in that way, in anything. And the Constitution, not the President, is the highest law in the land.

The Constitution applies to US Citizens and those subject to its jurisdiction. It doesnt apply to people living in France.

[Kujako]

The Constitution applies to US Citizens and those subject to its jurisdiction. It doesnt apply to people living in France.

The Constitution says it does, and the Supreme Court agrees. Who are you to claim otherwise?