When is it treason? - Page 3 - Graybeard Outdoors
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 07:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood View Post
I am with you.

There was a law passed many years ago that gave the President to unilaterally stop immigration from any given country. It does not specify the rules or reasons. The dems and judges are claiming he is doing it based on religious reasons which the law does not specify. He is perfectly within the law. Carter done it many years ago and he was never questioned. I think the Democrats are the ones that passed the law to start with.

Rosewood



If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.


I anyone wants a look a what a country under an unrestrained President looks like look at The Philippines under its new president Duterte.
BAGTIC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 08:43 AM
Senior Member
 
doublebass73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 7,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkgael View Post
Geosmin: Thank you for that info.


I am not the contrarian. Suggesting that it is a good idea to understand what the opposition says does not make me so.
You didn't suggest, you said "it's not my job".

Liberal Logic 101:
Americans shall be required to submit to a background check to exercise a right already guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment while any foreigner shall be allowed into America without submitting to a background check.



H&R family: Topper 88 16 Gauge Mod, Pardner 16 gauge Full, Model 480 Topper Jr .410 Full, Handi .300 AAC Blackout
doublebass73 is offline  
post #23 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 10:02 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 168
Default

For those who believe this a slam dunk in favor of the administration, there are risks.

When the ACA was brought before the SCOTUS, many thought it would not stand constitutional scrutiny. We have that ruling.

Judge Roberts wrote: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

Clearly, Roberts was referring to intent.

Judge Scalia: "...will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

All this nothing new to our courts.


"I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is."

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower
geosmin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 12:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY and Sweet Valley, PA
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teamnelson View Post
Pete, seriously, how hard would it be for you to post the essential argument - you posted what 4 times already and still no clarity to the thread?

Here's the essential argument from the TRO:
" plaintiff asserts that the EO is denying them their right, among other things, to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin." and is further injurious to "the separation of church and state."

The freedom to associate is for citizens, per the Constitution, not for non-citizens. You may have family members in ISIS, but you don't have a right to fly them over to visit you to assert your freedom to associate.
Separation of church and state is not a constitutional right, and has not been established as a legal precedent.
Further, there is no religious language in the EO, nor even National Origin language - only citizenship.

Plaintiff assumes discrimination where none is stated. There is plenty of precedent in Tort law to pitch this one as well.
Plaintiff is by the way a Muslim Imam, and academic, as well as a liberal progressive registered Democrat. The argument is an emotional screed, but the Judge in question is likewise a liberal progressive registered Democrat, so he found a good advocate. The "counter arguments" offered here would be dismissed by any constitutional lawyer, regardless of political affiliation. I'd like to see this one go to SCOTUS, just to read the statements.
The more relevant sections of the court decision are those items which form the basis for the injunction. Those begin on page ten with SAC 4-5 and continue throgh and past the end of page twelve. Those passages deal with the intent of the law and the intent of the administration. They refer to what Mr. Trump and members of his staff have said about the purpose of the EO and not with the EO itself.
If Mr. Trump would keep his mouth shut and his Twitter account dOrmant, he might get somwhere

NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer.
The readiness is all.
“Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games.” Ernest Hemingway ...

Last edited by Darkgael; 03-20-2017 at 12:21 AM.
Darkgael is offline  
post #25 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 12:24 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 9,255
Default

And that--the rewrite of the ACA by Justice Roberts--illustrates what happens when the Supreme Court goes extra-Constitutional. The founders have been spinning in their graves from the outrageous license all three branches have taken in the past 8 years. The fault is not with the Constitution, but rather with the faith and integrity of men and women placed in high positions.

Swingem
magooch is offline  
post #26 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 06:35 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 869
Default

It amazes me how the court quotes "separation of church and state" which is entirely made up. It is no where in the Constitution. That is a mantra the liberals have used for years and is a lie. The Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How is allowing the practice of any religion unconstitutional I ask. I also do not see anything unconstitutional by the President restricting entry into our country. We do not owe any foreigner anything, we do not have to allow any of them to come to our country. We are a sovereign nation, it is our right to restrict entry and our governments job to protect its citizens by doing so. The liberals are so against anything Christian related, but when it comes to Muslims, they are up in arms defending them even if there is nothing there.

One other thing, the phrase "separation of church and state", if we want to play semantics, isn't Church generally a Christian term? Islam doesn't call their places of worship "churchs".

Wonder if a new religion was started up called "kill USA" with their main stated goal of destroying the US inside out, if the Democrats would object to banning them from entering our country based on "separation of church and state". Of course they would defend them, sometimes I think that is what the Democrats are trying to do to our country anyway.

Rosewood
rosewood is offline  
post #27 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 10:09 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 9,255
Default

(quote from Rosewood)
"sometimes I think that is what the Democrats are trying to do to our country anyway."

Sir, there is no conjecture--it's a matter of fact.

Swingem
magooch is offline  
post #28 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 10:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,537
Default

Two people arguing over what the definition of what is'' is'', and the people of this country end up with a stained dress!! gypsyman

We keep trying peace, it usually doesn't work!! Remember(12/7/41)(9/11/01) gypsyman
gypsyman is offline  
post #29 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 02:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY and Sweet Valley, PA
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
How is allowing the practice of any religion unconstitutional I ask.
It isn't.
That, however, is not what the Constitution says.
You quoted the establishment clause of the First Amendment part of which says:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Note: as to the phrase "separation of church and state" - it does not appear in the First Amendment, nor anywhere in the Constitution. The USConst reference is to an establishment of religion. Jews worship in Synagogues, Muslims in Mosques, Mormons in Temples...all establishments of religion.

NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer.
The readiness is all.
“Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games.” Ernest Hemingway ...

Last edited by Darkgael; 03-20-2017 at 02:18 PM.
Darkgael is offline  
post #30 of 34 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 10:42 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 9,255
Default

Clear thinking people should not be prevented from using common sense to distinguish between real religion and evil that lurks behind a religious façade. Neither should a prudent people be misdirected into believing that our Constitution is a suicide pact. Stick to your guns Mr. President. Keep the homicidal zealots out of our country and never, never, never give in to the looney left who have lost their minds to bat crap crazy idealism.

Swingem
magooch is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Graybeard Outdoors forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome