quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
MJ01

quote:

Nevertheless, the President says it is a matter of National Security, and it only DIRECTLY impacts people who have ZERO Constitutional rights.

You are terribly misinformed. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection to persons. One does not have to be a citizen to gain this benefit.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A person having a green card or a visa is provided equal protection of our laws no matter where they may be physically, because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

I think you may have missed some of the subjects of what you quoted there, Vincent. There are no States making or enforcing any laws here. This is a Federal matter.

quote:

The 9th ruling was overly broad, and stayed the parts of the lawful order that apply only to foreigners who have never been here and who have no right to come here, and who the president has every bit the authority needed to temporarily stop from coming in per his executive order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I think you may have missed some of the subjects of what you quoted there, Vincent. There are no States making or enforcing any laws here. This is a Federal matter.

You seem to be saying that the 14 th. ammendment only applies to states and not the federal govt.
if so then:
Jesus you are phoquing stupid

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Because:
1) the ban violates the Constitution, and

How do you think it violates the Constitution? That's a real question. I'd like to read your explanation.

quote:

2) the administration can give no proof there's a dire emergency except in its own hysteria.

It's as dire a National Defense emergency as setting up the No-Fly Zone over Libya, or meddling in Syria. That's not to say it's okay for Trump to not follow the rules because Obama didn't, but it is there to point out that many of those in Congress opposing Trump's actions, supported Obama's, even though there was even less of an imminent danger to the US. The thing with not allowing travelers from 7 countries is that we don't know if any of them are potential terrorists, right? That can't be proven until after the fact, anyway.

The way the EO was written and/or executed was ham-handed. Of that there is no doubt.

How is this different than Obama prioritizing immigrant classifications for deportation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


I am concerned if the order is overturned on Constitutional grounds, as I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree with you there, this is the judiciary taking the powers of the executive and the legislative branches as their own, a very bad precedent and one which may lead to civil war

My concern is not as broad as yours. My concern is specifically in the area of potentially blocking our government (Both Executive and Legislative branches) from taking action against foreign individuals or governments, due to Constitutional protection applied to foreign nationals.)


"Sorry, you can't blow up that ISIS money stash, or provide air support to the Kurds. You are discriminating against radical Islamic Sunnis who are protected by our Constitution."

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


I am concerned if the order is overturned on Constitutional grounds, as I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree with you there, this is the judiciary taking the powers of the executive and the legislative branches as their own, a very bad precedent and one which may lead to civil war

My concern is not as broad as yours. My concern is specifically in the area of potentially blocking our government (Both Executive and Legislative branches) from taking action against foreign individuals or governments, due to Constitutional protection applied to foreign nationals.)


"Sorry, you can't blow up that ISIS money stash, or provide air support to the Kurds. You are discriminating against radical Islamic Sunnis who are protected by our Constitution."

Oh, that is just fucking absurd. How can you make such a lame-brained statement suggesting that radical Islamic Sunni have rights under our Constitution? Bush jailed his POWs at Guantanamo Bay for the express purpose of avoiding the Constitution. I am not convinced that they were beyond reach even there since they were within jurisdiction of the United States. But apparently the Court went with it. ::shrugs::

quote:

Last year, the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration and the national interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted—not just arrested, but convicted—of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


I am concerned if the order is overturned on Constitutional grounds, as I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree with you there, this is the judiciary taking the powers of the executive and the legislative branches as their own, a very bad precedent and one which may lead to civil war

My concern is not as broad as yours. My concern is specifically in the area of potentially blocking our government (Both Executive and Legislative branches) from taking action against foreign individuals or governments, due to Constitutional protection applied to foreign nationals.)


"Sorry, you can't blow up that ISIS money stash, or provide air support to the Kurds. You are discriminating against radical Islamic Sunnis who are protected by our Constitution."

Oh, that is just fucking absurd. How can you make such a lame-brained statement suggesting that radical Islamic Sunni have rights under our Constitution? Bush jailed his POWs at Guantanamo Bay for the express purpose of avoiding the Constitution. I am not convinced that they were beyond reach even there since they were within jurisdiction of the United States. But apparently the Court went with it. ::shrugs::

I made no such statement suggesting that radical Islamic Sunni have rights under our Constitution. I brought it up to demonstrate the absurdity of foreign nationals ("persons" with no qualifier) being entitled to full protection under our Constitution.

The whole concept is lame-brained and absurd. It looks like the administration is going to rescind this order and right a new one. We'll see what happens next.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


I am concerned if the order is overturned on Constitutional grounds, as I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree with you there, this is the judiciary taking the powers of the executive and the legislative branches as their own, a very bad precedent and one which may lead to civil war

My concern is not as broad as yours. My concern is specifically in the area of potentially blocking our government (Both Executive and Legislative branches) from taking action against foreign individuals or governments, due to Constitutional protection applied to foreign nationals.)


"Sorry, you can't blow up that ISIS money stash, or provide air support to the Kurds. You are discriminating against radical Islamic Sunnis who are protected by our Constitution."

Oh, that is just fucking absurd. How can you make such a lame-brained statement suggesting that radical Islamic Sunni have rights under our Constitution? Bush jailed his POWs at Guantanamo Bay for the express purpose of avoiding the Constitution. I am not convinced that they were beyond reach even there since they were within jurisdiction of the United States. But apparently the Court went with it. ::shrugs::

I made no such statement suggesting that radical Islamic Sunni have rights under our Constitution. I brought it up to demonstrate the absurdity of foreign nationals ("persons" with no qualifier) being entitled to full protection under our Constitution.

The whole concept is lame-brained and absurd. It looks like the administration is going to rescind this order and right a new one. We'll see what happens next.

Ahhh . . a little sarcasm notation [8|] would have been helpful. Apologies.

The qualifier is "under the jurisdiction of the United States."

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


I am concerned if the order is overturned on Constitutional grounds, as I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree with you there, this is the judiciary taking the powers of the executive and the legislative branches as their own, a very bad precedent and one which may lead to civil war

My concern is not as broad as yours. My concern is specifically in the area of potentially blocking our government (Both Executive and Legislative branches) from taking action against foreign individuals or governments, due to Constitutional protection applied to foreign nationals.)


"Sorry, you can't blow up that ISIS money stash, or provide air support to the Kurds. You are discriminating against radical Islamic Sunnis who are protected by our Constitution."

Oh, that is just fucking absurd. How can you make such a lame-brained statement suggesting that radical Islamic Sunni have rights under our Constitution? Bush jailed his POWs at Guantanamo Bay for the express purpose of avoiding the Constitution. I am not convinced that they were beyond reach even there since they were within jurisdiction of the United States. But apparently the Court went with it. ::shrugs::

I made no such statement suggesting that radical Islamic Sunni have rights under our Constitution. I brought it up to demonstrate the absurdity of foreign nationals ("persons" with no qualifier) being entitled to full protection under our Constitution.

The whole concept is lame-brained and absurd. It looks like the administration is going to rescind this order and right a new one. We'll see what happens next.

Ahhh . . a little sarcasm notation [8|] would have been helpful. Apologies.

The qualifier is "under the jurisdiction of the United States."

So, if the qualifier is "under the jurisdiction of the United States"... The question is, since Green card and VISA holders are now exempt... How is the ban unconstitutional?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
MJ01

quote:

Nevertheless, the President says it is a matter of National Security, and it only DIRECTLY impacts people who have ZERO Constitutional rights.

You are terribly misinformed. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection to persons. One does not have to be a citizen to gain this benefit.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A person having a green card or a visa is provided equal protection of our laws no matter where they may be physically, because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

I think you may have missed some of the subjects of what you quoted there, Vincent. There are no States making or enforcing any laws here. This is a Federal matter.

That is true, DS. But the 14th Amendment was drafted by the Reconstruction Committee post Civil War. Prior to that citizens were first citizens of a state. The 14th Amendment made them citizens of the United States. Some of the rebel states had not yet been taken back into the Union. Neither the states nor the United States can interfere with the unalienable, natural rights of any person whatever his condition. The 14th enfolds the first Five Amendments, placing restrictions on both the states and the United States, as I understand my reading.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
MJ01

quote:

Nevertheless, the President says it is a matter of National Security, and it only DIRECTLY impacts people who have ZERO Constitutional rights.

You are terribly misinformed. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection to persons. One does not have to be a citizen to gain this benefit.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A person having a green card or a visa is provided equal protection of our laws no matter where they may be physically, because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

I think you may have missed some of the subjects of what you quoted there, Vincent. There are no States making or enforcing any laws here. This is a Federal matter.

That is true, DS. But the 14th Amendment was drafted by the Reconstruction Committee post Civil War. Prior to that citizens were first citizens of a state. The 14th Amendment made them citizens of the United States. Some of the rebel states had not yet been taken back into the Union. Neither the states nor the United States can interfere with the unalienable, natural rights of any person whatever his condition. The 14th enfolds the first Five Amendments, placing restrictions on both the states and the United States, as I understand my reading.

Then it's being inferred, and not explicitly stated. If we're going to infer, or take for what it was meant to stand for, there is no such thing as an anchor baby, since that was explicitly rebuffed during Congressional discussions.

Which is it? Is it what is inferred about the Amendment's writing, or is it what is written?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
MJ01

quote:

Nevertheless, the President says it is a matter of National Security, and it only DIRECTLY impacts people who have ZERO Constitutional rights.

You are terribly misinformed. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection to persons. One does not have to be a citizen to gain this benefit.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A person having a green card or a visa is provided equal protection of our laws no matter where they may be physically, because they are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

I think you may have missed some of the subjects of what you quoted there, Vincent. There are no States making or enforcing any laws here. This is a Federal matter.

That is true, DS. But the 14th Amendment was drafted by the Reconstruction Committee post Civil War. Prior to that citizens were first citizens of a state. The 14th Amendment made them citizens of the United States. Some of the rebel states had not yet been taken back into the Union. Neither the states nor the United States can interfere with the unalienable, natural rights of any person whatever his condition. The 14th enfolds the first Five Amendments, placing restrictions on both the states and the United States, as I understand my reading.

Then it's being inferred, and not explicitly stated. If we're going to infer, or take for what it was meant to stand for, there is no such thing as an anchor baby, since that was explicitly rebuffed during Congressional discussions.

Which is it? Is it what is inferred about the Amendment's writing, or is it what is written?

SCOTUS interprets the case and/or law before it through the lens of stare dices. Precedents, precedents, precedents, applied or not to the case at bar.
You and I do not infer anything. It is the function of judicial review. Judges apply Case Law. Often narrowly. You and I may have opinions but they are of no value except in debates, but no value in Law. Citizens do not have a vote on the Associates' Opinions. Even Congressional "rebuffs" are subject to Judicial Review. Neither congress nor president have the last word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
hey troll---its possible that desi might answer you,

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Reading your question again this morning, DS, lead me to this observation: a written Amendment is static. All written messages are static. By that I mean the scribe has had his say and often speaks no more. But communication requires a recipient and since the scribe is now silent perhaps forevermore, especially in the case of Amendments, the recipient is left to interpret what was written. So, yeah, every written piece must be judged and interpreted. That's what Courts do. In the case of the 14th Amendment there are contemporaneous letters and subsequent Court Opinions. Opinions are always interpretations, so they depend upon which historical and social frames the interpreters are using.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Reading your question again this morning, DS, lead me to this observation: a written Amendment is static. All written messages are static. By that I mean the scribe has had his say and often speaks no more. But communication requires a recipient and since the scribe is now silent perhaps forevermore, especially in the case of Amendments, the recipient is left to interpret what was written. So, yeah, every written piece must be judged and interpreted. That's what Courts do. In the case of the 14th Amendment there are contemporaneous letters and subsequent Court Opinions. Opinions are always interpretations, so they depend upon which historical and social frames the interpreters are using.

So, the US Constitution can be changed not only by amendment, but by changing the meanings of words, and also by changing the "historical and social frames the interpreters" use?

You don't need the scribe to be able to speak again, if you can go back and read his/her reasoning for what was written. If there is enough historical data to make a ruling on intent (beyond a shadow of a doubt could be a metric for determining what constitutes 'enough'), then the scribe doesn't need to speak anymore.

I am of the belief that intention trumps word usage.

Stare Decisis and precedent can be ruled against, too. If one SCOTUS rules one way, it's no guarantee that a different SCOTUS will come to the same conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions