- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Open Invitation: Explain How the Immigration EO is Unconstitutional
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:07 pm to JuiceTerry
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:07 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Open invitation: Explain how many terrorist acts people from those seven countries have committed on American soil in 40 years
Bonus invitation: Explain which countries have, and why they aren't on the list
So no legal argument, then?
1
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:07 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Open invitation: Explain how many terrorist acts people from those seven countries have committed on American soil in 40 years
Bonus invitation: Explain which countries have, and why they aren't on the list
Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:07 pm to Knight of Old
quote:
But that clause was amended, no?
i was just pointing out constitutional issues vs exceeding statutory authority issues
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:08 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:Assuming that the ban is no longer being enforced against permanent residents (I believe Kelly issued a statement to this effect), then yes. As it was initially applied, green card holders had a slam dunk due process argument.
Then do you at least agree with me that this is not a constitutional issue?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:10 pm to Tigerlaff
Not against constitutionality, no. Just a common sense argument.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:11 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Open invitation: Explain how many terrorist acts people from those seven countries have committed on American soil in 40 years
It's precautionary, dumbass. It is a pause to seek ways to prevent from happening here what is happening in European countries.
This is one of the worst arguments you loons are making.
A decent metaphor would be putting in a home security system after several neighbors have been broken into. In that scenario, one would be reasonable to take precautions with the expectation that you might be under direct threat of a break in and therefor take steps to prevent such happening at your home.
You people are loons. You have a 2x4 boner for people that literally represent opposition to everything you pretend to hold dear.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:12 pm to JuiceTerry
Well, this thread is about Unconstitionality.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:12 pm to Iosh
quote:
The fact that Obama removed an identical set of countries from the Visa Waiver Program is relevant for political gotcha points, but I don't see how it's relevant to the legal analysis because the Visa Waiver Program just meant some people had to get a visa who would otherwise have been exempt (specifically those who had recently visited one of those countries
Of course it's relevant, if an argument against this eo is based on religious persecution. The issue has nothing to do with how the president applied his discretion but who was targeted and why. It's more difficult to blame this restriction on religious discrimination when a previous administration applied restrictions to the same countries based on their relative threat.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The incorporation cases?
When has a 1st Amendment incorporation case been used against the U.S. president? I honestly don't know. Incorporation might be appropriate in the context of a state-level order.
Could you even make a free exercise claim for people who aren't in the country?
quote:
and this EO may violate the limits of that statutory authorization, but that would not be an issue with constitutionality but more of a statutory interpretation (which is a possible issue of this EO)
Right, so most likely not a constitutional issue.
quote:
and just b/c they authorized this putative behavior doesn't mean that the behavior, in reality, automatically doesn't violate the constitution
Awfully speculative there, but better than most.
I really want to see someone make the liberty interest argument.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:13 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:Again this is from my non-legal perspective, but per the establishment clause, it would be showing preference based on religion, one (or all but one) over the other.
I'm gonna need you to drill down on this: are you saying that if Trump, not Congress or a State, had barred only muslims, that it would be unconstitutional?
Why?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:14 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Just a common sense argument.
Funny. My common sense says this temporary travel ban didn't go nearly far enough. As you pointed out, there are several of other countries we should have included...but hey it's a start.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:14 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:I'm not making that argument. I don't believe this EO is unconstitutional (again, assuming they've wised up on green cards), but it's definitely in conflict with Hart-Celler.
Of course it's relevant, if an argument against this eo is based on religious persecution.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:14 pm to Tigerlaff
Check the section of the constitution near the abortion clause. It houses all kinds of crazy things like "Admin agencies are constitutional because we didn't strike them down and they're too powerful" and "totally intrastate commerce is interstate commerce because it affects interstate markets" and "sodomy is a right that is so essential to ordered liberty that it existed at the time of the founding."
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:14 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Of course it's relevant, if an argument against this eo is based on religious persecution. The issue has nothing to do with how the president applied his discretion but who was targeted and why.
i don't think Obama's EO had the "Christian carve out" that Trump's EO does
quote:
It's more difficult to blame this restriction on religious discrimination when a previous administration applied restrictions to the same countries based on their relative threat.
the only real argument this response is good for is the "Trump picked these countries b/c of business interest" arguments
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:15 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
When has a 1st Amendment incorporation case been used against the U.S. president?
that wasn't your question
quote:
Right, so most likely not a constitutional issue.
i already said there is one potential constitutional issue (religious preference/discrimination)
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:16 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Again this is from my non-legal perspective, but per the establishment clause, it would be showing preference based on religion, one (or all but one) over the other.
The 1st Amendment deals with laws passed by "Congress." It has been incorporated against the 50 states. How would that apply to the president, who is neither Congress nor a state?
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 8:30 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:17 pm to Scoop
So they wanted to ban precautionary countries just to be sure, but not known terrorist countries like Saudi Arabia? Makes zero sense to me. Makes this ban super strange to me.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:17 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
The 1st Amendment deals with laws pass by "Congress." It has been incorporated against the 50 states. How would that apply to the president, who is neither Congress nor a state?
bruh
where does Trump get the authority to issue this EO?
a congressional law
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:17 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
I know the EO gives preference to certain religions over others which is discriminatory by definition.
Our immigration policy is discriminatory. That's what laws do, they choose winners and losers. The issue here is noncitizens seeking entry don't have any constitutional rights to speak of.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News