- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 3:57 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 1/31/17 at 3:57 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
If they had banned Muslims exclusively, I think the unconstitutional argument would be much more valid.
Except that the statute states that he can deny entry to any he deems necessary, with no mention of restrictions on religious grounds. The dems are reading into the statute something that isn't there.
0
Posted on 1/31/17 at 3:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution is for citizens of the United States and does not hold true for any other group or persons.
So there is no unconstitutionality, as these refugees are not Citizens of the United States of America.
So there is no unconstitutionality, as these refugees are not Citizens of the United States of America.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 3:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the part of the EO that gives preferential treatment to "minority religious" (which means Christianity) could be unconstitutional.
This is the only part that gives me pause.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 3:59 pm to skrayper
quote:
TECHNICALLY, if you could systemically prove it was targeted at preventing one specific religion from coming to the US, you might be able to make a case for a violation of the First Amendment. That would be tough to do, though. There's no precedent for it though, and you're presuming a LOT in the interpretation.
How? What string of 1st Amendment case law applies to things other than acts passed by Congress?
quote:
Now, if you're looking at the level of the EO itself and stating that it is unconstitutional by way of exceeding the powers of the Executive Branch, you might have a case - but the precedent of what those EOs can do has already been expanded during the Obama Administration. One would be hard pressed to find a legal foothold NOW that the EO he signed was beyond his authority. 20-30 years ago? Probably.
The authority to do this is written into a statute by Congress. The legislature has authorized the president to do this. See the OP. There is no Article II issue here.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 3:59 pm to Tigerlaff
Not referencing this specific EO, but regarding religion:
I thought religious persecution was one of the criteria for being a refugee. Christians are being persecuted in some of these countries.
I recall Hindus and other religions coming to the U.S. due to religious persecution. How can you address religious persecution, without addressing religion?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:00 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:and we have a winner
Because libs don't like it.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:01 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
Is this illegal or unconstitutional? I honestly don't know but to me it feels shady, un-American, and wrong.
At least you admit you have no concrete idea and only your feelings.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:01 pm to sms151t
That's the problem with progressives. They are trying to extend the US Constitution onto the globe. Foreigners are not subject to the constitutional rights that are afforded to citizens.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
one argument is religious preference. the part of the EO that gives preferential treatment to "minority religious" (which means Christianity) could be unconstitutional. the rest? should be fine, legally
There aren't sunnis that are religious minorities in some of these countries?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:02 pm to sms151t
quote:
So there is no unconstitutionality, as these refugees are not Citizens of the United States of America.
The arguments center around the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") of the 1st Amendment. I think it's a weak argument but that's what people are arguing. I do wonder about the provisions giving preference to religious minorities (christians) in these countries.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:03 pm to sms151t
Pretty sure you still can't throw someone in jail for decades before trying them with no representation with a hand picked jury by the prosecution just because they are an illegal immigrant.
Ditto for not being able to charge for drug laws due to evidence from an unconstitutional search.
The Consitution dictates how the US government is run.
In practice, it obviously applies more to US citizens than not due to their direct governance of us. But that doesn't mean they can go off the reservation entirely just for non-citizens.
Ditto for not being able to charge for drug laws due to evidence from an unconstitutional search.
The Consitution dictates how the US government is run.
In practice, it obviously applies more to US citizens than not due to their direct governance of us. But that doesn't mean they can go off the reservation entirely just for non-citizens.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:03 pm to sms151t
quote:
Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution is for citizens of the United States and does not hold true for any other group or persons.
a law that violates certain rights is kind of different than a law that is unconstitutional as the law itself. this law wouldn't be unconstitutional b/c it violated the rights of non-citizens, it would be unconstitutional b/c it violated settled constitutional law regarding our laws/regulations
i think the issue with visa/green card holders would be an argument that it violated the statutory authority used to enact the EO
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:03 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:Right, but the ban is on countries, and not religion.
Note that 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) says nothing about discriminating based on religion.
quote:The executive order itself is proof of exclusion based on nationality.
Even if that is the case (it's not), you'd basically need a written admission from Trump that he is excluding citizens of these seven countries based on nationality and not out of concerns for national security.
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). Since 1152(a)(1)(A) presumes the need for a visa already exists, Trump's EO list is relevant in a way the Obama's VWP list isn't.
Good luck with that argument considering that the Obama administration agreed with the threat assessment from these places.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:03 pm to sms151t
quote:
Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution is for citizens of the United States and does not hold true for any other group or persons.
You are wrong. There are numerous references to "persons" in the Constitution. See the OP for the 14th and 5th Amendments.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:04 pm to Tigerlaff
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
Bonus invitation: Explain which countries have, and why they aren't on the list
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:But that clause was amended, no?
visa/green card holders
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:05 pm to skrayper
quote:
TECHNICALLY, if you could systemically prove it was targeted at preventing one specific religion from coming to the US, you might be able to make a case for a violation of the First Amendment.
How in the hell does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" have any bearing on the immigration status of non- citizen refugees from majority Muslim countries?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:06 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). Since 1152(a)(1)(A) presumes the need for a visa already exists, Trump's EO list is relevant in a way the Obama's VWP list isn't.
Then do you at least agree with me that this is not a constitutional issue?
If so, do you think there is a real argument to be made in court that Trump has an axe to grind with these 7 countries specifically and that this is not a national security measure?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:06 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
What string of 1st Amendment case law applies to things other than acts passed by Congress?
the incorporation cases?
quote:
The authority to do this is written into a statute by Congress. T
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)
quote:
The legislature has authorized the president to do this.
maybe
and just b/c they authorized this putative behavior doesn't mean that the behavior, in reality, automatically doesn't violate the constitution
Posted on 1/31/17 at 4:07 pm to lsu2006
quote:
The arguments center around the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") of the 1st Amendment. I think it's a weak argument but that's what people are arguing.
Wouldn't apply in this case.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News