Register to Comment
Page 60 of 63 FirstFirst ... 10 505859606162 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 628
Like Tree287Likes
  1. #591
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,532

    Quote Originally Posted by Dame_Enda View Post
    Nope. The article says that previous SCOTUS references to intent did not pertain to statements prior to taking office. That omission is itself a precedent.
    That's not how precedent works in law.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #592
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is online now

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    17,938

    Quote Originally Posted by Justinian View Post
    Which countries would that be, huh? Because no country is currently affected by the travel ban as there's an injunction against the executive order. Iranians can obtains visas and can enter the United States.

    There is literally not a single liberal democracy of which I'm aware that bans citizens of another country from obtaining a visa to enter it. Only Trump would have done so.


    Oh, playing semantics, eh?

    You started with the "religion" and "sexuality" lie. Now move on to "well, who else does it?"

    Guess what numpty. It is the USA we are talking about. It is the US Constitution and the powers of the office of the President.

    How about you start by telling everyone why it matters in the slightest what any other country in the world does? Maybe point to the appropriate part of t US Constitution to support your case?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #593
    Justinian Justinian is online now

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,955

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    Oh, playing semantics, eh?

    You started with the "religion" and "sexuality" lie. Now move on to "well, who else does it?"

    Guess what numpty. It is the USA we are talking about. It is the US Constitution and the powers of the office of the President.

    How about you start by telling everyone why it matters in the slightest what any other country in the world does? Maybe point to the appropriate part of t US Constitution to support your case?
    Uhm, I don't know if you've noticed, but I was asked about other countries - that's where you decided to enter the conversation and which you decided to respond to. Retard.

    For a more academic approach (unrelated to the thread), here's an interesting article on a discussion about using foreign law to interpret the United States Constitution:

    http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-com...pretation.html
    Last edited by Justinian; 20th March 2017 at 02:16 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #594
    Dame_Enda Dame_Enda is offline
    Dame_Enda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    28,970

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    Oh, playing semantics, eh?

    You started with the "religion" and "sexuality" lie. Now move on to "well, who else does it?"

    Guess what numpty. It is the USA we are talking about. It is the US Constitution and the powers of the office of the President.

    How about you start by telling everyone why it matters in the slightest what any other country in the world does? Maybe point to the appropriate part of t US Constitution to support your case?
    Its not even completely clear if a religious based ban would violate the Establishment Clause, given the US did have a de facto Muslim ban in the 1790s. A more cautious interpretation would say that the clause simply requires there be no religious test for US citizens.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #595
    Dame_Enda Dame_Enda is offline
    Dame_Enda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    28,970

    Judge Kozinski is arguing that Trumps campaign statements are immune from being taken into account because of the First Amendment.

    The 9th Circuits Alex Kozinski defends Trumps travel ban on First Amendment grounds.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #596
    Truth.ie Truth.ie is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    30,813

    Quote Originally Posted by Justinian View Post
    Which countries would that be, huh? Because no country is currently affected by the travel ban as there's an injunction against the executive order. Iranians can obtains visas and can enter the United States.

    There is literally not a single liberal democracy of which I'm aware that bans citizens of another country from obtaining a visa to enter it. Only Trump would have done so. Thankfully there's a competent and free and independent judiciary in the United States.
    Jimmy Carter banned ALL Iranians.
    Clinton banned ALL Haitian refugees.
    Obama banned ALL Cuban refugees ( a week before leaving office)
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #597
    Justinian Justinian is online now

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,955

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth.ie View Post
    Jimmy Carter banned ALL Iranians.
    Clinton banned ALL Haitian refugees.
    Obama banned ALL Cuban refugees ( a week before leaving office)
    Let's start with your last claim, namely that Obama banned all Cuban refugees from the United States. In reality Obama ended the so-called 'wet foot dry foot' policy. Now what is that policy? I'll let FT speak for me:

    Barack Obama has ended a longstanding US policy that allowed Cuban nationals who reached the US to be eligible automatically for residency, putting a final stamp on his foreign policy legacy.

    (...)

    Cubans fearing political persecution will still be able to apply for political asylum, while other Cuban nationals seeking to emigrate to the US will go through the traditional immigration channels.
    You will note that a Cuban fearing political asylum is still a refugee. The preferential treatment of Cubans compared to other immigrants from other nations has simply ended.

    As regards Clinton and the Haitian refugees, the Organization of American States points out that the policy was initiated by H.W. Bush and only applied to those Haitian refugees who were intercepted at sea.

    President Bush ordered the summary return of all Haitians picked up at sea. He had been given the liberty to do so by a US Supreme Court ruling that the Refugee Convention did not apply on the high seas.

    President Clinton adopted his predecessor's policies shortly after taking office in January 1993, despite having severely criticized this same policy in the 1992 presidential campaign
    And as the NYTimes says:

    But in a bluntly worded taped radio message broadcast this morning directly to Haiti and Haitian communities in the United States, Mr. Clinton said that Haitians who fled by boat would be intercepted and returned to the island. He also emphasized that he would enforce current United States immigration policy, which prevents Haitians escaping poverty -- but not those fleeing political persecution -- from seeking asylum in the United States.
    Note the part in italics.

    Now with Carter you've a point that is less deceptive, but there it is important to note that the United States and Iran were entangled in a crisis with one another and the policy enacted by Carter was a so-called "countermeasure" (because I'm lazy I'll just refer you to Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Dams).

    CLINTON SAYS U.S. WILL CONTINUE BAN ON HAITIAN EXODUS - NYTimes.com
    http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/gavigane.html
    https://www.ft.com/content/1e973994-...b-e7eb37a6aa8e
    Cuban Migrants on Deadly Journey to U.S. Wrongfooted by Obama | Foreign Policy
    Why Trump's Muslim ban isn't like Jimmy Carter's actions on Iranians | PunditFact
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #598
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is online now

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    17,938

    Quote Originally Posted by Dame_Enda View Post
    Judge Kozinski is arguing that Trumps campaign statements are immune from being taken into account because of the First Amendment.

    The 9th Circuits Alex Kozinski defends Trumps travel ban on First Amendment grounds.
    It is high farce.

    The executive order is within the constitutional powers of the office of President, or it is not.

    What anybody says or said has no bearing. Can you imagine, the court is arguing that if, say, Hillary had won the election and instituted the identical order, it would have been constitutionally permissible. Because she didn't say she would "ban Muslims". This world is mad.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #599
    Erudite Caveman Erudite Caveman is online now

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,384

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth.ie View Post
    Obama banned ALL Cuban refugees ( a week before leaving office)
    LOL, is there anything you can't warp beyond recognition?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #600
    Erudite Caveman Erudite Caveman is online now

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,384

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    It is high farce.

    The executive order is within the constitutional powers of the office of President, or it is not.

    What anybody says or said has no bearing. Can you imagine, the court is arguing that if, say, Hillary had won the election and instituted the identical order, it would have been constitutionally permissible. Because she didn't say she would "ban Muslims". This world is mad.
    T-wreck, will you email the judge and explain the way the law works to him. Thx.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 60 of 63 FirstFirst ... 10 505859606162 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment