Breaking: Trump travel ban going to Supreme Court!

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
The choice for the Supreme Court is a pretty simple binary one.

1) campaign speech (and media misrepresentation and skewing of said speech), whether subsequently altered or walked back, directly determines the authority the President has after being elected.

2) it doesn't.

??????

That is not the question at all. How bizarre an assertion.

The President's authority is not in question.

His authority does not include violating the constitution of the United States.

The question is if the Executive Order violates the Constitution.

Being vacant of fact-based evidence the order would effect security, it is first and foremost unconstitutional as it is an arbitrary or irrational order.

It secondly violates the separation of powers between the federal government and states because it burdens the states economies and governance without any rational, evidence based justification.

It also violates the first amendment since the order's animus clearly is religious discrimination. That animus was publicly established by Trump and Surrogates both pre and post election (contrary to what you claimed)

It also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

It also violates the due process clause guaranteed under the 5th and 14th amendments.

The Supreme Courts ruling will be a thorough admonishment of the President.

The entire argument of the lawyers in the last hearing was based on Trump's campaign statements and the ruling was also largely based on the campaign statements, so if you think the assertion is bizarre, you are not in step with the lawyers fighting your corner.

a reply to: UKTruth

Basically minor courts ruled on emotional feelings and politics rather than any actual law breaking.

Leaving the heavy lifting to SCOTUS.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Trump should easily win this.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

As UK mentioned, in 1965 there was an amendment to that decision.

no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

Emphasis added.

Link: Cornell.edu

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Trump should easily win this.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

As UK mentioned, in 1965 there was an amendment to that decision.

no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

Emphasis added.

Link: Cornell.edu

But the ban isn't on any particular person. The ban is on countries.

That's the ban wording.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Trump should easily win this.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

As UK mentioned, in 1965 there was an amendment to that decision.

no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

Emphasis added.

Link: Cornell.edu

One of the problems with that section of the 1965 Act is that discrimination based on nationality, place of birth and residence has been standard practice for decades right up to this day, so it is hard to see how it is going to take precedent over the President's broad powers in this case - unless, as I said, campaign statements are used to determine discrimination against religion.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Trump should easily win this.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

As UK mentioned, in 1965 there was an amendment to that decision.

no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

Emphasis added.

Link: Cornell.edu

But the ban isn't on any particular person. The ban is on countries.

That's the ban wording.

What part of nationality or place of birth don't you understand?

a reply to: UKTruth

The wording of the statute is pretty damn clear, regardless of "standard practices" since, since law is law until suspended or overturned by a court, and the SCOTUS doesn't look at "standard practices," they look at constitutionality. Campaign statements show intent only; the law, as amended, says one can't discriminate based upon nationality or place of birth, etc. Unless that law is deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, which is their job to determine constitutionality, the ban should remain.

That said, it is very likely the SCOTUS will uphold the ban because of the current lineup.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth

The wording of the statute is pretty damn clear, regardless of "standard practices" since, since law is law until suspended or overturned by a court, and the SCOTUS doesn't look at "standard practices," they look at constitutionality. Campaign statements show intent only; the law, as amended, says one can't discriminate based upon nationality or place of birth, etc. Unless that law is deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, which is their job to determine constitutionality, the ban should remain.

That said, it is very likely the SCOTUS will uphold the ban because of the current lineup.

Well the law is not really the law in all circumstances. We've seen laws ignored because, for example, no one has been punished for them in a long time.
The fact remains that US practice has and does violate that clause every single day - so using it to override the 'competing' section of the law may prove to be too thin. We'll see.

Plus, the section relating to the President's powers is also pretty damn clear:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth

The wording of the statute is pretty damn clear, regardless of "standard practices" since, since law is law until suspended or overturned by a court, and the SCOTUS doesn't look at "standard practices," they look at constitutionality. Campaign statements show intent only; the law, as amended, says one can't discriminate based upon nationality or place of birth, etc. Unless that law is deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, which is their job to determine constitutionality, the ban should remain.

That said, it is very likely the SCOTUS will uphold the ban because of the current lineup.

Well the law is not really the law in all circumstances. We've seen laws ignored because, for example, no one has been punished for them in a long time.
The fact remains that US practice has and does violate that clause every single day - so using it to override the 'competing' section of the law may prove to be too thin. We'll see.

It doesn't matter what happens "every single day." Law is still law. Period.

It doesn't matter if it's sometimes not enforced or ignored, it's still...

Law.

And why the SCOTUS is the final word, right or wrong.

Yes, we'll see.

ETA:

I see your edit, and that is why I say the SCOTUS will likely uphold the ban, and THAT is the issue: presidential powers over legislature/law, and why it's a SCOTUS/constitutional issue right now: presidential power versus law: which hold more legal weight.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth

The wording of the statute is pretty damn clear, regardless of "standard practices" since, since law is law until suspended or overturned by a court, and the SCOTUS doesn't look at "standard practices," they look at constitutionality. Campaign statements show intent only; the law, as amended, says one can't discriminate based upon nationality or place of birth, etc. Unless that law is deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, which is their job to determine constitutionality, the ban should remain.

That said, it is very likely the SCOTUS will uphold the ban because of the current lineup.

Well the law is not really the law in all circumstances. We've seen laws ignored because, for example, no one has been punished for them in a long time.
The fact remains that US practice has and does violate that clause every single day - so using it to override the 'competing' section of the law may prove to be too thin. We'll see.

It doesn't matter what happens "every single day." Law is still law. Period.

It doesn't matter if it's sometimes not enforced or ignored, it's still...

Law.

And why the SCOTUS is the final word, right or wrong.

Yes, we'll see.

ETA:

I see your edit, and that is why I say the SCOTUS will likely uphold the ban, and THAT is the issue: presidential powers over legislature/law, and why it's a SCOTUS/constitutional issue right now: presidential power versus law: which hold more legal weight.

The Presidential power being referred to IS the law - as passed by Congress in the 1952 Act. Section 212(f).

So we have 2 laws that are pretty damn clear and contradict each other.

So in one case the law will not be the law that stands and other considerations will have to be taken into account. Its never as black and white as you make out - if it were there would be no need for judges.

a reply to: UKTruth

The Presidential power being referred to IS the law - as passed by Congress in the 1952 Act. Section 212(f).

And AMENDED in 1965 so there's no discrimination based upon "nationality, place of birth, etc," and which supersedes—and therefore overrides—certain provisions of the original law. That's how US law works.

That's why it's an amendment to the original law.

So we have 2 laws that are pretty damn clear and contradict each other.

No, we have one law that was amended.

ETA:


You said yourself:

Well that ruling was before the 1965 Act that amended the 1950s Act

And I agreed with you, and now you're trying to argue against what you said just to argue with me? Just to argue? SMH

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Sillyolme

Words are free speech. He cannot be charged on words. EO ban is an action. Only action can be charged.

"You have the right to remain silent, and anything you DO say may be used against you in a court of law......."

Sound familiar?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth

The Presidential power being referred to IS the law - as passed by Congress in the 1952 Act. Section 212(f).

And AMENDED in 1965 so there's no discrimination based upon "nationality, place of birth, etc," and which supersedes—and therefore overrides—certain provisions of the original law. That's how US law works.

That's why it's an amendment to the original law.

So we have 2 laws that are pretty damn clear and contradict each other.

No, we have one law that was amended.

ETA:

 

You said yourself:

Well that ruling was before the 1965 Act that amended the 1950s Act

And I agreed with you, and now you're trying to argue against what you said just to argue with me? Just to argue? SMH

Incorrect. But your reference to the previous post is fair and deserves clarity... even though it has already been posted after AND the ruling I was referring to that you have re-quoted was in relation to the 1950 Supreme Court precedent, not the President's power from the 1952 Act.

Later comment:

There is a section of the 1965 Act that challenges this - though not directly. The above remains, and is not referenced as being amended in the 65 Act, as all other changes are, so it is certainly still in force. However, the 65 Act specifically mentions discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and nationality. The Supreme Court will have to decide how both the statement in the 52 Act and the 65 Act play against each other. Tough one.

The 1965 Act did amend the 1952 Act, but not in it's entirety

The 1965 Act lists out all amendments to the 1952 Act very clearly. The section relating to the President's power was not amended.

We have two laws that compete against each other.

a reply to: UKTruth

I was referring to that you have re-quoted was in relation to the 1950 Supreme Court precedent, not the President's power from the 1952 Act.

You didn't quote the Supreme Court Case, you quoted the 1952 law, and the amendment to it, and that is what I originaly referred to in agreement.

So, the amendment was to the latter, the 1952 law. Section Section 212(f), which you quoted was to the 1952 law. The Amendment, in 1965, was to that act.

The 1965 Act did amend the 1952 Act, but not in it's entirety

I never said entirely, I said certain provisions, namely no discrimination against, etc.

You just want to argue for the sake of argument.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth

I was referring to that you have re-quoted was in relation to the 1950 Supreme Court precedent, not the President's power from the 1952 Act.

You didn't quote the Supreme Court Case, you quoted the 1952 law, and the amendment to it, and that is what I originaly referred to in agreement.

So, the amendment was to the latter, the 1952 law. Section Section 212(f), which you quoted was to the 1952 law. The Amendment, in 1965, was to that act.

The 1965 Act did amend the 1952 Act, but not in it's entirety

I never said entirely, I said certain provisions, namely no discrimination against, etc.

You just want to argue for the sake of argument.

Incorrect.

My comment was in response to this:

Interesting, thanks for sharing that. The petition quotes a 1950 Supreme Court case saying, “‘The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty’ that lies in the ‘legislative power’ and also ‘is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.’ Maybe I have no idea how the country operates, but should a left wing lowlife judge who get NO intelligence or security briefings have more power than the POTUS?

to which I said:

Well that ruling was before the 1965 Act that amended the 1950s Act, so there is more to consider than the precedent alone. It's a big decision - one that has major ramifications on the power within the Executive Branch.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You appear not to understand the 1965 Act and the specific sections of the 1952 Act that were amended. In fact, you didn't even understand that the President's power on immigration was a law when you said:

I say the SCOTUS will likely uphold the ban, and THAT is the issue: presidential powers over legislature/law, and why it's a SCOTUS/constitutional issue right now: presidential power versus law: which hold more legal weight.

Once again, the specific section of the 1952 act relating to the President's broad powers on immigration was not amended by the 1965 Act.

Therefore we have 2 standing laws that compete with each other.

The argument is not for the sake of it, it is to correct you.

a reply to: Liquesence

You just want to argue for the sake of argument.

“If we always think the other guy is the reason for our lack of success, then it’s time to start planning ways to lift ourselves up, rather than planning ways to take him down.”

a reply to: UKTruth

The 1965 amendment amended the 1952 act.

The language (section 202(f)), which you quoted was from the 1952 act, which was amended. The amendment from 1965, which you also quoted...amended that.

You are quoting an act (1952) that was amended in 1965, which you acknowledge.

You appear not to understand the 1965 Act and the specific sections of the 1952 Act that were amended.

I understand them, as I have said and quoted multiple times.

The argument is not for the sake of it, it is to correct you.

No, you are arguing for the sake of argument. We have already agreed the 1965 act was an amendment to the 1952 act, and set forth the fact that, in the amended provision of that 1952 act, which was enacted in 1965, there shall be no discrimination based on nationality, place of birth, etc. That is why the 1965 law amended provisions of the 1952 law.

That is the issue. You're being purposefully obtuse, and I have made my point multiple times.

Good night.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Liquesence

You just want to argue for the sake of argument.

“If we always think the other guy is the reason for our lack of success, then it’s time to start planning ways to lift ourselves up, rather than planning ways to take him down.”

I guess that's why you're arguing for the sake of argument, huh?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth

The 1965 amendment amended the 1952 act.

The language (section 202(f)), which you quoted was from the 1952 act, which was amended. The amendment from 1965, which you also quoted...amended that.

You are quoting an act (1952) that was amended in 1965, which you acknowledge.

You appear not to understand the 1965 Act and the specific sections of the 1952 Act that were amended.

I understand them, as I have said and quoted multiple times.

The argument is not for the sake of it, it is to correct you.

No, you are arguing for the sake of argument. We have already agreed the 1965 act was an amendment to the 1952 act, and set forth the fact that, in the amended provision of that 1952 act, which was enacted in 1965, there shall be no discrimination based on nationality, place of birth, etc. That is why the 1965 law amended provisions of the 1952 law.

That is the issue. You're being purposefully obtuse, and I have made my point multiple times.

Good night.

The 1965 amendment amended the 1952 act.

Correct.

The language (section 202(f)), which you quoted was from the 1952 act, which was amended. The amendment from 1965, which you also quoted...amended that.

Incorrect - the language from the 1952 Act relating to Presidential authority on immigration Section 212(f) was NOT amended by the 1965 Act. I don;t know how many times you need to be told that.

You are quoting an act (1952) that was amended in 1965, which you acknowledge.

Correct - but I need to state again (clearly) that the 1965 Act amended certain sections of the 1952 Act. Those sections not amended by the 1965 Act remain in law, of which includes section 212(f)

I am not being obtuse - I am trying to tell you the facts, but you don;t seem to want to hear them.

Both the law relating to Presidential authority on immigration section 212(f) of the 1952 Act AND the 1965 law relating to discrimination against race, religion, nationality, etc.. are standing laws.

I hope that is clear enough and you will adjust your misunderstandings that section 212(f) of the 1952 ACT is not a law and your later, equally incorrect revision, that the 1965 ACT amended section 212(f)

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth

The 1965 amendment amended the 1952 act.

The language (section 202(f)), which you quoted was from the 1952 act, which was amended. The amendment from 1965, which you also quoted...amended that.

You are quoting an act (1952) that was amended in 1965, which you acknowledge.

You appear not to understand the 1965 Act and the specific sections of the 1952 Act that were amended.

I understand them, as I have said and quoted multiple times.

The argument is not for the sake of it, it is to correct you.

No, you are arguing for the sake of argument. We have already agreed the 1965 act was an amendment to the 1952 act, and set forth the fact that, in the amended provision of that 1952 act, which was enacted in 1965, there shall be no discrimination based on nationality, place of birth, etc. That is why the 1965 law amended provisions of the 1952 law.

That is the issue. You're being purposefully obtuse, and I have made my point multiple times.

Good night.

Obamas ban on travel from and to cuba was unconstitutional then. Obama set a precedent and as such that amendment needs to be re visited and modified dont it?
I f you go after trump for this you reopen all past presidents who enforced that travel ban.