How long will Muslim Ban 2.0 last?

Lol. Weak. But try again though. I'm a bit under the weather and your posts today have provided some comic relief. How about another YouTube video.

 

So activist judges can change law based on what was said during a campaign or "perceived" expressed intent by bill's authors and law be damned...fucking great, let's start rolling back all kinds of shit. I mean where's my $2500 annual premium savings Obama promised me? Obama said the individual mandate was "not a tax". Who do I sue based on these new rules? Everything the president has done is 100% legal and constitutional period. You can look it up yourself, it's plain as day there's not even a gray area. The POTUS can deny entry to anyone for any reason...it's his fucking job.

When does the whole damn welfare system get dropped I mean LBJ made his intent very clear, "we'll have them niggers voting democrat for generations". Yup...welfare is now gone then because the racist democrats planned to keep black Americans poor and dependent on them. That's the new rules, fuck the law because it's all about what the perceived intent was. This just scratches the surface...so yeah...let's get busy shredding laws and government overreach.

These judges are part of this leftist communist machine trying to overthrow our president and this shit is going to get squashed.

 

Nope. Won't get squashed. It going to the SC this time.

It's not a leftist judge or any other type of judge. It's the fact that the judicial branch does not have the authority to make Natioal Security decisions. The President does, absolutely.

I was trying to give @VintageWannabe a way to bow out and accept that his initial understanding was wrong. Its sad but normal these days.

 

I meant bigger picture. The left's attempt to bring down Trump is going to fail.

 

Ive been doing some historical research and this congressional record from 1968
http://www.thetechnocratictyranny.com/PDFS/Congressional_Record_14th_Amendment_Null_14amrec.pdf

is very telling on many levels but also explains exactly whats going on with this deal between him and the judiciary. good read.

p.s. oh yeah, i leaned a new word from it too "opprobrium". its how trump feels (or fakes) about now. see if you can find it in there. I was like wha the hell does that mean?

p.s.s. if anyones a twiterer, pass it his way. it could change the whole deal.

 

I'm not sure how this "explains exactly what's going on...." Maybe I'm just dense but I'm not seeing it. McCarran-Walter (1952), US v Curtiss-Wright SCOTUS decision (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/299/304.html#319), all back the fact that the President has sole authority in this realm, period. Now, unethical liberals who fail to acknowledge anything that doesn't support their position will often point to Title 8 Section 1152(a) USC, however this is simply a fools errand. It's legal hogwash having nothing to do with the National Security provisions, but instead focused on the normal course if immigration and rules of order governing "quotas", ceilings, etc. It's really no different than citing a set of rules that governs who is eligible to get a commercial pilots license and forcibly applying it to felons convicted of 25 instances of DUI. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

But the bigger proof that the folks attacking the legal basis for the order are either uneducated or dishonest is found in Title 8, section 1182 (f) says (quote)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."

Anybody with an IQ higher than a gnat can clearly read and has no choice but to recognize that while Trump may or may not be right in the "appropriate value" of his order - the legal, constitutional and authoritative basis for his order simply cannot be contradicted. The problem is that it take putting aside personal bias and actually reading for comprehension rather than just looking for ammunition. IMHO what the activist judges, the liberals pushing them, and the general public who are happily celebrating this mess are doing frankly rises to the level of constitutional treason. There is as far as I'm concerned no other explanation beyond either rampant stupidity or willful deception (or a combination of the two) than can explain their actions. And like I said, I personally don't even think Trump should have issued these orders. I just realize that saying they're illegal is either stupid or a lie or both.

 

You sure use the term unethical freely. Must be nice to be secure in your moral and intellectual superiority.
Poor David Bier; someone needs to swat that dude.

 

You're right. Somebody does need to swat him.

And yes, I'm using the term pretty freely. It seems pretty evident. No moral or intellectual superiority. Just disdain for dishonesty. People ought to be honest enough to at least evaluate things they don't actually agree with.

And you'll note, Biers attempts to use the same old argument I posted (along with specific citation to the actual US Code).

What this means is that if Biers were actually correct, it would also mean that the economic sanctions against Iran would ALSO be illegal.

 

Just modeling what the left has been faking for years, Dave.

 

this current situation is history repeating itself. a power struggle. and this "on the record" would be trumps, trump card.

the judiciary does not have any true power to enforce their decision. all they have to back them is corrupted beliefs, a shared delusion on a grand scale. and this is why the legacy media battle rages on in full force.

outside of that though, none, not one of the judges have a proper oath filed. not due to single, simple mistake but multiple.

this official record should also destroy all credibility of the hisss story that is taught in the pubs (public school/fool system)

how do you like them apples? Sssssssssssss

 

I'm sure that made sense in your head.

 

I'm not even convinced it did. That's how bad it was.

 

What in the world are you trying to say?

 

I know you. I'll bet that you have a sign hanging on your wall reminding you that
"Orvis is OLD!"

Dammit, I am getting old.

 

is that a comprehensive assurance? "He that is surety for a stranger, shall smart for it."


read the .pdf and consider the implications within it.

 

Come on now, you gotta use a little logic on this. As stated by a couple of others, if he wanted a Muslim ban then I'll bet he would have included the words "all Muslims" and not just those people coming from countries that tend to be producing Muslim terrorists don't you think? I suspect that the reason he even used the word "Muslim" is because almost all of the terrorists have been Muslim.Yes, Trump needs to be very careful of his choice of words but then again, he's not a polished political resident of Washington and hasn't learned the word game played there. He tends to say one thing when he means something else.

On second thought, maybe he is a polished politician.

 

that sir pent in the gar den, he told a story.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gar

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

also see (rather *hear*) John 1:1