Thread: President Donald Trump

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Humbert

Do you have a specific constitutional issue that you want to get my opinion on?

I would say there are three relevant issues. The immigration act of 1965 specifically forbids discrimination because of national origin. The constitution forbids the promotion of one religion over another. The president has strong powers to control the borders. Ultimately I think the last issue will be the determining issue. But in order for the president's power to supercede immigration law I believe he would have to clearly show a demonstrable imminent threat. There does not seem to be any imminent threat coming from these seven countries and there hasn't ever been a terrorist act committed within our borders by anyone from these countries so I believe this ban is on shaky grounds legally.

Shackles grounds yes,but unconstitutional yet to be determined.Is Trump the first president to sign an executive order that has been on shaky grounds as to it's constitutionally?

Of course not. But he's the first to do it because he's DELIBERATELY bypassed the usual agencies that would check it for him.

Does the constitution explicitly state a president must consult these agencies,isn't it a bit of a null point since if any of his orders that are not within in the bounds of his authority can be stopped.
Seems as though you missed the part where Trump stated he would not govern the same as the establishment folks have done.

Of course its a null point, and he could have avoided all this shit by using them.

However, this was probably done deliberately to fill the front pages up while HR427 and the Dodd Frank bill are quietly repealed without any of you dumb fuckers noticing.

In Major Blow to ACLU, Judge Finds Trump Immigration Ban Doesn’t Discriminate Against Muslims
by Rachel Stockman | 6:05 pm, February 3rd, 2017 362

submit to reddit
In a major blow to the ACLU, a federal judge in Boston refused to extend an order which temporarily put a stop to a portion of Trump’s controversial “extreme vetting” immigration order. Judge Nathaniel Gorton, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, decided not to renew the temporary restraining order which was set to expire on Sunday. This ruling is significant because it is the first time that the Trump administration has scored a victory after a series of orders nationwide slamming the ban.

The ACLU argued that the Executive Order violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution because it favors Christians over Muslims. However, the judge found that nothing in the order “compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”

In addition, he found the plaintiffs lacked standing. “Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to the United States and consequently, any future implementation of Section 5 (b) would not personally affect them,” the judge wrote.

Judge Gorton found that while the Fifth Amendment protects “invidious discrimination by the Federal government” against aliens, there is a difference between the constitutional rights enjoyed by non-citizens who have entered the U.S. and those outside of it.

“The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is largely immune from judicial control,” the judge wrote (citations omitted). In other words, the President has the right to make immigration decisions, without interference from the courts.

The court’s previous temporary order, which has now been lifted, stopped the deportation not only of two college professors, but also ordered the government to stop blocking deportation of others “similarly situated.” The case is being handled by attorneys from the ACLU and was originally brought on behalf of Mazdak Pourabdollah Tootkaboni and Arghavan Louhghalam, Iranian nationals and associate professors at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. They are both lawful permanent residents of the United States. The case was amended to include five other Iranian nationals and Oxfam America. The judge found that in light of the Trump administration’s statement that the order was not intended to apply to lawful permanent residents, the claims for injunctive relief by the professors are now moot.

This is breaking news. LawNewz will update accordingly.


https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&so...9Yff3SlLStTGPg

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Humbert

I would say there are three relevant issues. The immigration act of 1965 specifically forbids discrimination because of national origin. The constitution forbids the promotion of one religion over another. The president has strong powers to control the borders. Ultimately I think the last issue will be the determining issue. But in order for the president's power to supercede immigration law I believe he would have to clearly show a demonstrable imminent threat. There does not seem to be any imminent threat coming from these seven countries and there hasn't ever been a terrorist act committed within our borders by anyone from these countries so I believe this ban is on shaky grounds legally.

Shackles grounds yes,but unconstitutional yet to be determined.Is Trump the first president to sign an executive order that has been on shaky grounds as to it's constitutionally?

Of course not. But he's the first to do it because he's DELIBERATELY bypassed the usual agencies that would check it for him.

Does the constitution explicitly state a president must consult these agencies,isn't it a bit of a null point since if any of his orders that are not within in the bounds of his authority can be stopped.
Seems as though you missed the part where Trump stated he would not govern the same as the establishment folks have done.

Of course its a null point, and he could have avoided all this shit by using them.

However, this was probably done deliberately to fill the front pages up while HR427 and the Dodd Frank bill are quietly repealed without any of you dumb fuckers noticing.

No distraction would keep HR427 or the Dodd Frank bill from being noticed. You really are a little dim aren't you.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Does the constitution explicitly state a president must consult these agencies

You like most right wing lemmings have not a clue what the constitution means,

You nitwits will soon find out.

so far he has delivered the goods,

let's hope he goes crazy a bit further this week with a new batch of Executive Orders

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order | Washington Examiner

DOJ demolishes the court order suspending the eo on immigration by the grandstanding so called judge, he, not trump overeached his powers. No surprise there.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Humbert

I would say there are three relevant issues. The immigration act of 1965 specifically forbids discrimination because of national origin. The constitution forbids the promotion of one religion over another. The president has strong powers to control the borders. Ultimately I think the last issue will be the determining issue. But in order for the president's power to supercede immigration law I believe he would have to clearly show a demonstrable imminent threat. There does not seem to be any imminent threat coming from these seven countries and there hasn't ever been a terrorist act committed within our borders by anyone from these countries so I believe this ban is on shaky grounds legally.

Shackles grounds yes,but unconstitutional yet to be determined.Is Trump the first president to sign an executive order that has been on shaky grounds as to it's constitutionally?

Of course not. But he's the first to do it because he's DELIBERATELY bypassed the usual agencies that would check it for him.

Does the constitution explicitly state a president must consult these agencies,isn't it a bit of a null point since if any of his orders that are not within in the bounds of his authority can be stopped.
Seems as though you missed the part where Trump stated he would not govern the same as the establishment folks have done.

Of course its a null point, and he could have avoided all this shit by using them.

However, this was probably done deliberately to fill the front pages up while HR427 and the Dodd Frank bill are quietly repealed without any of you dumb fuckers noticing.

You should tell your idiot libtard buddies to stop shrieking about every little thing if they want anyone to pay attention to them again.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Does the constitution explicitly state a president must consult these agencies

You like most right wing lemmings have not a clue what the constitution means,

I know,I know you are the only enlightened one.

Originally Posted by longway

DOJ demolishes the court order suspending the eo on immigration by the grandstanding so called judge, he, not trump overeached his powers. No surprise there.

Then why are the immigration officials acting as if Trump's EO never happened?

Trump needs to fire a few immigration officials who are not following his orders

should do this on TV for good measure

this is going to be such a great week

IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING... this is what Trump and Putin are up to:
Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 for 60 million acres of Russian land to pump oil out of, but all that Russian oil went through pipelines in the Ukraine, who heavily taxed the proceeds, and were applying for admission into NATO at the time.
Putin subsequently invaded Ukraine in 2014, secured the routes to export the oil tax-free by sea, and took control of the port where their Black Sea Naval Fleet is based, by taking the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine by force and not giving it back. This was Hitler-tier imperialism that broke every international law in the free world.
After Obama sanctioned Russia for the invasion, they could only pump oil from approximately 3 of those 60 million acres. But now Rex Tillerson is soon to be our Secretary of State, and as of today, there’s information circulating that Donald Trump will likely unilaterally remove all sanctions against Russia in the coming days or weeks.
Putin will make half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars from that much untapped oil. All pumped tax-free through Crimea, stolen from Ukraine, now owned by Russia. Putin may have subverted our government just to become the richest man in the world. **According to leaked docs Trump will get 19% cut.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Trump needs to fire a few immigration officials who are not following his orders

Or fire a few of those pesky "so called" judges. How dare they defy his orders?

Nevermind. He can't fire immigration officials following a court order and those damn federal judges all were given life time appointments by congress. Welcome to the swamp Don.

Originally Posted by longway

You should tell your idiot libtard buddies to stop shrieking about every little thing if they want anyone to pay attention to them again.

It's not them you need to pay attention to, you fucking idiot.

Originally Posted by longway

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order | Washington Examiner

DOJ demolishes the court order suspending the eo on immigration by the grandstanding so called judge, he, not trump overeached his powers. No surprise there.

I think what you mean is "Shit right wing website posts sensationalist headline to con gullible twats like longface".

Meanwhile, the actual case is before a judge and probably headed to SCOTUS either way.

You don't a fucking clue, do you?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by longway

You should tell your idiot libtard buddies to stop shrieking about every little thing if they want anyone to pay attention to them again.

It's not them you need to pay attention to, you fucking idiot.

well its a good thing i am not paying any attention to them then isnt it?

Originally Posted by ChalkyDee

IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING... this is what Trump and Putin are up to:
Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 for 60 million acres of Russian land to pump oil out of, but all that Russian oil went through pipelines in the Ukraine, who heavily taxed the proceeds, and were applying for admission into NATO at the time.
Putin subsequently invaded Ukraine in 2014, secured the routes to export the oil tax-free by sea, and took control of the port where their Black Sea Naval Fleet is based, by taking the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine by force and not giving it back. This was Hitler-tier imperialism that broke every international law in the free world.
After Obama sanctioned Russia for the invasion, they could only pump oil from approximately 3 of those 60 million acres. But now Rex Tillerson is soon to be our Secretary of State, and as of today, there’s information circulating that Donald Trump will likely unilaterally remove all sanctions against Russia in the coming days or weeks.
Putin will make half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars from that much untapped oil. All pumped tax-free through Crimea, stolen from Ukraine, now owned by Russia. Putin may have subverted our government just to become the richest man in the world. **According to leaked docs Trump will get 19% cut.

Is there not one bit of stupid clap trap you idiots not run around shrieking about? Your fake news sites must be laughing their asses off at you, dreaming up ever more ridiculous rumours they cant believe you dummies actually lap up.

Originally Posted by longway

Is there not one bit of stupid clap trap you idiots not run around shrieking about?

Why do you write in Tinglish? Are you Za's even more retarded brother?

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Originally Posted by longway

DOJ demolishes the court order suspending the eo on immigration by the grandstanding so called judge, he, not trump overeached his powers. No surprise there.

Then why are the immigration officials acting as if Trump's EO never happened?

An enormously stupid question asked there, no surprises silly fanny was the one to ask it.

I think i will let you puzzle that one out yourself over the next 8 years or so.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by longway

Is there not one bit of stupid clap trap you idiots not run around shrieking about?

Why do you write in Tinglish? Are you Za's even more retarded brother?

I mention idiots and look who comes running.

Whats it to you?

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by longway

Is there not one bit of stupid clap trap you idiots not run around shrieking about?

Why do you write in Tinglish? Are you Za's even more retarded brother?

I mention idiots and look who comes running.

Whats it to you?

Whatever the fuck I want it be, you illiterate cocksucker.

Originally Posted by longway

^ look up what the justice department is you silly fuckwit. Free hint: its not a right wing website. Another hint sctually read the article.

(i) They did not "demolish" anything, they simply submitted their rebuttal.

(ii) The Washington Examiner isn't right wing? You idiot. It is owned by a conservative billionaire jesus wheezer you moron.

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit—he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee."

Witless trumpkins, they have no idea how badly they are getting fucked up the arse.

I look forward to all the squealing when they finally work it all out (if they ever do).

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by longway

^ look up what the justice department is you silly fuckwit. Free hint: its not a right wing website. Another hint sctually read the article.

(i) They did not "demolish" anything, they simply submitted their rebuttal.

(ii) The Washington Examiner isn't right wing? You idiot. It is owned by a conservative billionaire jesus wheezer you moron.

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit—he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee."

Witless trumpkins, they have no idea how badly they are getting fucked up the arse.

I look forward to all the squealing when they finally work it all out (if they ever do).

The rebuttal is not from a right wing site you silly old fart.