General Category > 3DHS

"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one in debate forums"

(1/5) > >>

sirs:
Now...about this latest Hawaiian Judge to squelch Trump's latest EO regarding a TEMPORARY travel ban from just a FEW countries, that are predominantly Muslim.....This ruling is wrong, on so many levels.  The jist of the ruling is that the Judge proclaims that although there's no actual language that specifcally bans anyone based on their religion, the apparent jist of the EO does indeed apparently ban folks from entering this country, based on their religion. 

Let's put away the Trump hatred mindset for a few moments and deal with present Constitutional guidelines and legal precedent. 

1) Let's pretend that the Judge is exactly correct....that he was able to read the mind of Trump, and ascertain the REAL reason for the EO, that of banning Muslims from entering this country, simply because they're Muslim.  Guess what.....the Constitution gives him precisely that authority.  Constitutional protections, which includes religious protections, ONLY APPLIES TO AMERICANS, AS IN LEGAL CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.  It does NOT apply to ANYONE NOT of this country, which includes ANY person, or ANY religion.  That's egregious error #1

2) The Judge even concedes that there is no language that specifically bans anyone from this country, based on their religion.  However the Judge apparently knows how nefarious Trump is, and has decided to read into the EO, something that simply isn't there.  A gross overstepping of Judicial authority.  That's egregious error #2

3) If this was a supposed ban on all Muslims, it would have included ALL Muslim countries, and not just those that just happen to also be designated terrorist havens/training grounds, by the PREVIOUS Administration  Egregious error #3

4) Lastly, we have PRECEDENT....as in previous presidents have performed precisely that, which Trump is trying to do...impose a TEMPORARY BAN on specific locations, as in countries, NOT religions.  Jimmy Carter imposed a ban on Iranian immigrants.  Where was the outrage??  The beloved FDR, one of the Left's icons, imposed a ban on even Jewish refugees, for fear of Nazi spies hiding among them.  Fricken error #4

Christians4LessGvt:
great summary!

kimba1:
actually #4 is the very reason not to do it . precedents can be used as examples to avoid . example alot of those jewish refugee died shortly afterwards .

sirs:
That could be a rationalizion for not doing it, but its not founded in anything legal or constitutional, which is the point.  Who knows how many Americans might have died, if Nazis were able to infiltrate under the guise of "refugees".  That's the point....We were at war then, we are at war now. 

The Constitution gives the President precisely this power.  It's ok for people to not like Trump or the policies he advocates.  But he's well within his legal right to impose such a temporary ban, regardless of how others might find it offensive, or mean, or "discriminatory".  People wanting to come here do NOT have religious freedom protections.  We, as a sovereign nation, get to decide.  And the President, right or wrong, decided that people from some regions of the world should have a stop sign applied....just like when Carter imposed his temporary ban, and not a whiff of condemnation

kimba1:
not really sure it`s not founded in anything legal or constitutional. precedents can be used as examples it should be not implemented. my concern is which is more harmful for the country the ban or not to ban.  Yes we are at war but this a global situation and will this action have repercussions. it`s seems everything is connection to some past actions. I`m not saying we shouldn`t ban refugee but at the very least if they die from this we may get repercussions. so far previous bans seem to have no notable impacts but we live in a more public world.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page