America On The Brink: It Took Trump 8 Days To Bring The U.S. To The Brink Of A Constitutional Crisis

[Eloy]

See Post # 69 for an explanation of your error.

Wrong, I explained his error.

You wrongly claimed that the Republican Congress gave the power to Trump to write illegal Executive Orders.

I'm really sorry to see you can't grasp what your read, I didn't say a damn thing about the republican congress. The law Trump and at least 5 other presidents used as the legal justification was passed by congress in 1952. I even posted the law for weak minded people like you. It's just a damn shame you lack the education to understand it. Maybe you ask an adult to explain it to ya.

It does not bother me that you are condescending.
You write that you did not say anything about the Republican Congress but you actually did so in the previous post when you wrote about Trump that: "he does have the authority when congress delegates the powers to him".
So, did Congress give authority to President Trump over immigration, it must be asked.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution covers naturalization of foreigners. Article 1 is about Congressional authority. Because this authority over immigration and naturalization is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress not the Executive. Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.

You quoted from 8 U.S. Code §1182 about Inadmissible Aliens which states that the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States and this was passed by Congress in 1952 overriding the veto of President Truman who considered such a Bill as discriminatory and un-American.

If your reference is correct, it looks like the authority over immigration and naturalization was given over by Congress to the Executive where immigrants are considered a threat in the opinion of a president. The 1952 Act, however, has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.

Now, Trump's use of the 1965 Act and the criteria he uses for denying entry of Muslims only from specified Muslim-majority states appears to violate other parts of the Constitution because it smacks of religious discrimination (First Amendment) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment). It is also conflicting with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI. So, all over the place Trump has overstepped the mark and is violating the Constitution he took an oath to defend. It has to be wondered if Donald Trump has ever even read the Constitution.

Feel free to point where foreign nationals, that are NOT on US soil, are granted rights under our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, I explained his error.

You wrongly claimed that the Republican Congress gave the power to Trump to write illegal Executive Orders.

I'm really sorry to see you can't grasp what your read, I didn't say a damn thing about the republican congress. The law Trump and at least 5 other presidents used as the legal justification was passed by congress in 1952. I even posted the law for weak minded people like you. It's just a damn shame you lack the education to understand it. Maybe you ask an adult to explain it to ya.

It does not bother me that you are condescending.
You write that you did not say anything about the Republican Congress but you actually did so in the previous post when you wrote about Trump that: "he does have the authority when congress delegates the powers to him".
So, did Congress give authority to President Trump over immigration, it must be asked.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution covers naturalization of foreigners. Article 1 is about Congressional authority. Because this authority over immigration and naturalization is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress not the Executive. Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.

You quoted from 8 U.S. Code §1182 about Inadmissible Aliens which states that the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States and this was passed by Congress in 1952 overriding the veto of President Truman who considered such a Bill as discriminatory and un-American.

If your reference is correct, it looks like the authority over immigration and naturalization was given over by Congress to the Executive where immigrants are considered a threat in the opinion of a president. The 1952 Act, however, has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.

Now, Trump's use of the 1965 Act and the criteria he uses for denying entry of Muslims only from specified Muslim-majority states appears to violate other parts of the Constitution because it smacks of religious discrimination (First Amendment) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment). It is also conflicting with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI. So, all over the place Trump has overstepped the mark and is violating the Constitution he took an oath to defend. It has to be wondered if Donald Trump has ever even read the Constitution.

Feel free to point where foreign nationals, that are NOT on US soil, are granted rights under our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

Let's cut to the chase here, simple yes or no question, but I want to you think of all the ramifications involved before your answer.

Do you want to extend our constitutional guarantees to every person in the world?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

We are either a nation of laws - or we aren't. If Trump doesn't obey the laws - why should we?

Damn!

I said the same thing when Obama was President and decided to give American citizenship to an illegal population.

 

[Eloy]

You wrongly claimed that the Republican Congress gave the power to Trump to write illegal Executive Orders.

I'm really sorry to see you can't grasp what your read, I didn't say a damn thing about the republican congress. The law Trump and at least 5 other presidents used as the legal justification was passed by congress in 1952. I even posted the law for weak minded people like you. It's just a damn shame you lack the education to understand it. Maybe you ask an adult to explain it to ya.

It does not bother me that you are condescending.
You write that you did not say anything about the Republican Congress but you actually did so in the previous post when you wrote about Trump that: "he does have the authority when congress delegates the powers to him".
So, did Congress give authority to President Trump over immigration, it must be asked.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution covers naturalization of foreigners. Article 1 is about Congressional authority. Because this authority over immigration and naturalization is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress not the Executive. Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.

You quoted from 8 U.S. Code §1182 about Inadmissible Aliens which states that the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States and this was passed by Congress in 1952 overriding the veto of President Truman who considered such a Bill as discriminatory and un-American.

If your reference is correct, it looks like the authority over immigration and naturalization was given over by Congress to the Executive where immigrants are considered a threat in the opinion of a president. The 1952 Act, however, has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.

Now, Trump's use of the 1965 Act and the criteria he uses for denying entry of Muslims only from specified Muslim-majority states appears to violate other parts of the Constitution because it smacks of religious discrimination (First Amendment) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment). It is also conflicting with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI. So, all over the place Trump has overstepped the mark and is violating the Constitution he took an oath to defend. It has to be wondered if Donald Trump has ever even read the Constitution.

Feel free to point where foreign nationals, that are NOT on US soil, are granted rights under our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

Let's cut to the chase here, simple yes or no question, but I want to you think of all the ramifications involved before your answer.

Do you want to extend our constitutional guarantees to every person in the world?

It is best for the American government to treat everyone according to the principles enshrined in Constitution where necessary.

 

[OKTexas]

9

I'm really sorry to see you can't grasp what your read, I didn't say a damn thing about the republican congress. The law Trump and at least 5 other presidents used as the legal justification was passed by congress in 1952. I even posted the law for weak minded people like you. It's just a damn shame you lack the education to understand it. Maybe you ask an adult to explain it to ya.

It does not bother me that you are condescending.
You write that you did not say anything about the Republican Congress but you actually did so in the previous post when you wrote about Trump that: "he does have the authority when congress delegates the powers to him".
So, did Congress give authority to President Trump over immigration, it must be asked.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution covers naturalization of foreigners. Article 1 is about Congressional authority. Because this authority over immigration and naturalization is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress not the Executive. Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.

You quoted from 8 U.S. Code §1182 about Inadmissible Aliens which states that the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States and this was passed by Congress in 1952 overriding the veto of President Truman who considered such a Bill as discriminatory and un-American.

If your reference is correct, it looks like the authority over immigration and naturalization was given over by Congress to the Executive where immigrants are considered a threat in the opinion of a president. The 1952 Act, however, has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.

Now, Trump's use of the 1965 Act and the criteria he uses for denying entry of Muslims only from specified Muslim-majority states appears to violate other parts of the Constitution because it smacks of religious discrimination (First Amendment) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment). It is also conflicting with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI. So, all over the place Trump has overstepped the mark and is violating the Constitution he took an oath to defend. It has to be wondered if Donald Trump has ever even read the Constitution.

Feel free to point where foreign nationals, that are NOT on US soil, are granted rights under our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

Let's cut to the chase here, simple yes or no question, but I want to you think of all the ramifications involved before your answer.

Do you want to extend our constitutional guarantees to every person in the world?

It is best for the American government to treat everyone according to the principles enshrined in Constitution where necessary.

Fine, now answer the question. Yes or NO?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

We are either a nation of laws - or we aren't. If Trump doesn't obey the laws - why should we?

I suspect he learned about not following the constitution by watching your fuzzy headed mud worshiper that you had in office for the last 8 years.
damn shame when some Un American piece of shit liberal judge thinks that he is more important that the president.
All we can hope for is that when those terrorists he loves so much blows something up and kills hundreds of American Citizens, that his own family is standing in proximity to the explosives. Maybe if the judges lose their wives and children, they might then understand the reasons.

 

[Eloy]

9

It does not bother me that you are condescending.
You write that you did not say anything about the Republican Congress but you actually did so in the previous post when you wrote about Trump that: "he does have the authority when congress delegates the powers to him".
So, did Congress give authority to President Trump over immigration, it must be asked.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution covers naturalization of foreigners. Article 1 is about Congressional authority. Because this authority over immigration and naturalization is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress not the Executive. Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.

You quoted from 8 U.S. Code §1182 about Inadmissible Aliens which states that the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States and this was passed by Congress in 1952 overriding the veto of President Truman who considered such a Bill as discriminatory and un-American.

If your reference is correct, it looks like the authority over immigration and naturalization was given over by Congress to the Executive where immigrants are considered a threat in the opinion of a president. The 1952 Act, however, has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.

Now, Trump's use of the 1965 Act and the criteria he uses for denying entry of Muslims only from specified Muslim-majority states appears to violate other parts of the Constitution because it smacks of religious discrimination (First Amendment) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment). It is also conflicting with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI. So, all over the place Trump has overstepped the mark and is violating the Constitution he took an oath to defend. It has to be wondered if Donald Trump has ever even read the Constitution.

Feel free to point where foreign nationals, that are NOT on US soil, are granted rights under our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

Let's cut to the chase here, simple yes or no question, but I want to you think of all the ramifications involved before your answer.

Do you want to extend our constitutional guarantees to every person in the world?

It is best for the American government to treat everyone according to the principles enshrined in Constitution where necessary.

Fine, now answer the question. Yes or NO?

The Constitution enshrines American values which should never be given away to be replaced with a dictator.

 

[OKTexas]

9

Feel free to point where foreign nationals, that are NOT on US soil, are granted rights under our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

Let's cut to the chase here, simple yes or no question, but I want to you think of all the ramifications involved before your answer.

Do you want to extend our constitutional guarantees to every person in the world?

It is best for the American government to treat everyone according to the principles enshrined in Constitution where necessary.

Fine, now answer the question. Yes or NO?

The Constitution enshrines American values which should never be given away to be replaced with a dictator.

Run along child, I don't have time for someone who lacks the balls to answer a simple question.

 

[Eloy]

9

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

Let's cut to the chase here, simple yes or no question, but I want to you think of all the ramifications involved before your answer.

Do you want to extend our constitutional guarantees to every person in the world?

It is best for the American government to treat everyone according to the principles enshrined in Constitution where necessary.

Fine, now answer the question. Yes or NO?

The Constitution enshrines American values which should never be given away to be replaced with a dictator.

Run along child, I don't have time for someone who lacks the balls to answer a simple question.

You will not hear from me again.

 

[Spare_change]

I'm really sorry to see you can't grasp what your read, I didn't say a damn thing about the republican congress. The law Trump and at least 5 other presidents used as the legal justification was passed by congress in 1952. I even posted the law for weak minded people like you. It's just a damn shame you lack the education to understand it. Maybe you ask an adult to explain it to ya.

It does not bother me that you are condescending.
You write that you did not say anything about the Republican Congress but you actually did so in the previous post when you wrote about Trump that: "he does have the authority when congress delegates the powers to him".
So, did Congress give authority to President Trump over immigration, it must be asked.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution covers naturalization of foreigners. Article 1 is about Congressional authority. Because this authority over immigration and naturalization is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress not the Executive. Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.

You quoted from 8 U.S. Code §1182 about Inadmissible Aliens which states that the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States and this was passed by Congress in 1952 overriding the veto of President Truman who considered such a Bill as discriminatory and un-American.

If your reference is correct, it looks like the authority over immigration and naturalization was given over by Congress to the Executive where immigrants are considered a threat in the opinion of a president. The 1952 Act, however, has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.

Now, Trump's use of the 1965 Act and the criteria he uses for denying entry of Muslims only from specified Muslim-majority states appears to violate other parts of the Constitution because it smacks of religious discrimination (First Amendment) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment). It is also conflicting with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI. So, all over the place Trump has overstepped the mark and is violating the Constitution he took an oath to defend. It has to be wondered if Donald Trump has ever even read the Constitution.

Feel free to point where foreign nationals, that are NOT on US soil, are granted rights under our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

Let's cut to the chase here, simple yes or no question, but I want to you think of all the ramifications involved before your answer.

Do you want to extend our constitutional guarantees to every person in the world?

It is best for the American government to treat everyone according to the principles enshrined in Constitution where necessary.

Tap-tap - ta - tap - tap - tap.

Gonna wear out a pair of shoes like that !

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Trumps in two weeks and is kicking ass.

Way to go Donald. I might not even throw up after voting for you in four years.

 

[petro]

Lakota worried about the constitution? What a joke as OP has called for the elimination of the 2nd amendment and just posted on another thread sympathy for the rioters in Berkeley as they shut down anothers right to speak.
Pure hypocrisy.

 

[TheDude]

Say OP, promise you'll start a new rant once you discover you were wrong again?

 

[P@triot]

It took Lakhota 8 days to create a trolling thread built on extreme hyperbolic propaganda

 

[skookerasbil]

Say OP, promise you'll start a new rant once you discover you were wrong again?

s0n.....that is the absolute best sig on the entire board!!!

Oh....Trump did it in only 5 days!!! duh..............

 

[P@triot]

Morgan Freeman on President Trump: “What I see is a guy who will not lose.”

Morgan Freeman endorsed Clinton. What he says about President Trump may surprise you.

 

[longknife]

Wrong, I explained his error.

You wrongly claimed that the Republican Congress gave the power to Trump to write illegal Executive Orders.

I'm really sorry to see you can't grasp what your read, I didn't say a damn thing about the republican congress. The law Trump and at least 5 other presidents used as the legal justification was passed by congress in 1952. I even posted the law for weak minded people like you. It's just a damn shame you lack the education to understand it. Maybe you ask an adult to explain it to ya.

It does not bother me that you are condescending.
You write that you did not say anything about the Republican Congress but you actually did so in the previous post when you wrote about Trump that: "he does have the authority when congress delegates the powers to him".
So, did Congress give authority to President Trump over immigration, it must be asked.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution covers naturalization of foreigners. Article 1 is about Congressional authority. Because this authority over immigration and naturalization is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress not the Executive. Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.

You quoted from 8 U.S. Code §1182 about Inadmissible Aliens which states that the President of the United States has authority to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion if he believes they represent a threat to the United States and this was passed by Congress in 1952 overriding the veto of President Truman who considered such a Bill as discriminatory and un-American.

If your reference is correct, it looks like the authority over immigration and naturalization was given over by Congress to the Executive where immigrants are considered a threat in the opinion of a president. The 1952 Act, however, has been amended many times and was modified substantially to become the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.

Now, Trump's use of the 1965 Act and the criteria he uses for denying entry of Muslims only from specified Muslim-majority states appears to violate other parts of the Constitution because it smacks of religious discrimination (First Amendment) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment). It is also conflicting with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI. So, all over the place Trump has overstepped the mark and is violating the Constitution he took an oath to defend. It has to be wondered if Donald Trump has ever even read the Constitution.

Feel free to point where foreign nationals, that are NOT on US soil, are granted rights under our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written by and for Americans but, of course, it enshrines American values such as treating people equally. When the American government acts in such a way that people seeking to enter or visit are treated differently, then the First Amendment is violated, if not in the letter then certainly in the spirit. Such a practice would be un-American. Secondly, by stopping Muslims from 7 countries to even board planes while allowing Christians from those countries to enter, while this would appeal to the American evangelist Pat Robertson and the members of his 700 Club, this shows discrimination in the treatment of visitors with no chance of having Due Process in the Fifth Amendment. The United States also has treaties with other countries which accept an obligation to protect the rights of refugees and this is violated when some refugees are allowed to seek asylum but not others based on being Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries. This also violates the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI which applies to U.S. government employees but by extension of the principle of the separation of church and state. In other words, when Trump says he wants his Executive Order to be interpreted to mean only Christian refugees may be granted asylum, he is riding a coach and horses through the Constitution.

What a pile of dribble

 

[CowboyTed]

“Obedience to specific court orders is what keeps us from being a banana republic or fascist dictatorship. That’s a really big deal.”

It took little more than a week in office for President Donald Trump to thrust the nation to the brink of a constitutional crisis.

Late Friday, Trump issued an executive order forbidding millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of visitors and 500,000 legal immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States. Over the following 48 hours, massive protests erupted in cities and airports nationwide, courts temporarily blocked major parts of the order, the administration defied the courts and Democrats called for an investigation into the administration’s defiance. As the weekend drew to a close, an anonymous White House official proclaimed the whole episode a “massive success story.”

The federal courts thought otherwise. On Saturday night, a judge in Brooklynordered the Trump administration to stop deporting refugees and visitors immigration authorities had previously cleared to enter the country. Two judges in Massachusetts ordered that travelers who were legally authorized to be in the United States shouldn’t be detained at or deported from Logan International Airportfor a period of seven days. A judge in Seattle halted the deportation of two travelers. And a judge in Virginia issued an order requiring the administration to allow lawyers access to lawful permanent residents — also known as green card holders — whom Customs and Border Protection agents had detained at Dulles International Airport on Trump’s instructions.

When federal judges rule, government officials — up to and including the president — are supposed to obey or risk being held in contempt of court. A government that ignored the courts would be able to violate the law and the Constitution at will. So for more than two centuries, the nation’s courts have had the last word on what’s legal and constitutional — and what is not. “We are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders,” the Department of Homeland Securitysaid in a statement Sunday evening.

But there was little indication that the Trump administration has fully complied with the court orders — or that Trump’s inner circle even believed the administration had to do so.

Disobeying a court order “is a big deal for any government official — federal, state, local, executive, legislative, whatever,” said Abner Greene, a law professor at Fordham University. “Obedience to specific court orders is what keeps us from being a banana republic or fascist dictatorship. That’s a really big deal.”

The chaos “doesn’t just risk a constitutional crisis,” argued Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School. “Assuming the report is accurate, it creates one.” If the Trump administration believes that the court orders limiting the president’s executive order are unlawful, it can file an emergency appeal, Dorf noted. But “outright defiance,” he added, “can only be deemed disrespect for the rule of law.”

More: It Took Donald Trump 8 Days To Bring The U.S. To The Brink Of A Constitutional Crisis

Trump obviously believes that he is above the law. He must be quickly and clearly shown that he isn't.

Federal District courts will keep him in check with this kind of stuff. But he is also offending the Senate and Congress with his EXECUTIVE ORDER T.V. reality show he has been putting on. When the reality is that a WALL will have to go through congress FIRST. Anything that has anything to do with TAXPAYER dollars has to go through congress for approval first. Which include "sanctuary cities" paying for the wall, and this ridiculous executive order for two states (he lost) to do an investigation into voter fraud. The states won't pay for it, meaning the taxpayers of this country would have to pay for it, meaning again it would have to go through congress first.

Anything to THRILL the mass's--LOL

Congress has already committed 15 billion for the wall dufas.

Haven't passed jack shit yet... Many GOP fiscal conservatives are getting worried...

What spending cuts is he bringing to pay for the wall?

 

[Kondor3]

“Obedience to specific court orders is what keeps us from being a banana republic or fascist dictatorship. That’s a really big deal.”

"Mister Marshall has made his decision... now, let him enforce it." - apocryphal attribution to Andrew Jackson

 

[OKTexas]

“Obedience to specific court orders is what keeps us from being a banana republic or fascist dictatorship. That’s a really big deal.”

It took little more than a week in office for President Donald Trump to thrust the nation to the brink of a constitutional crisis.

Late Friday, Trump issued an executive order forbidding millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of visitors and 500,000 legal immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States. Over the following 48 hours, massive protests erupted in cities and airports nationwide, courts temporarily blocked major parts of the order, the administration defied the courts and Democrats called for an investigation into the administration’s defiance. As the weekend drew to a close, an anonymous White House official proclaimed the whole episode a “massive success story.”

The federal courts thought otherwise. On Saturday night, a judge in Brooklynordered the Trump administration to stop deporting refugees and visitors immigration authorities had previously cleared to enter the country. Two judges in Massachusetts ordered that travelers who were legally authorized to be in the United States shouldn’t be detained at or deported from Logan International Airportfor a period of seven days. A judge in Seattle halted the deportation of two travelers. And a judge in Virginia issued an order requiring the administration to allow lawyers access to lawful permanent residents — also known as green card holders — whom Customs and Border Protection agents had detained at Dulles International Airport on Trump’s instructions.

When federal judges rule, government officials — up to and including the president — are supposed to obey or risk being held in contempt of court. A government that ignored the courts would be able to violate the law and the Constitution at will. So for more than two centuries, the nation’s courts have had the last word on what’s legal and constitutional — and what is not. “We are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders,” the Department of Homeland Securitysaid in a statement Sunday evening.

But there was little indication that the Trump administration has fully complied with the court orders — or that Trump’s inner circle even believed the administration had to do so.

Disobeying a court order “is a big deal for any government official — federal, state, local, executive, legislative, whatever,” said Abner Greene, a law professor at Fordham University. “Obedience to specific court orders is what keeps us from being a banana republic or fascist dictatorship. That’s a really big deal.”

The chaos “doesn’t just risk a constitutional crisis,” argued Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School. “Assuming the report is accurate, it creates one.” If the Trump administration believes that the court orders limiting the president’s executive order are unlawful, it can file an emergency appeal, Dorf noted. But “outright defiance,” he added, “can only be deemed disrespect for the rule of law.”

More: It Took Donald Trump 8 Days To Bring The U.S. To The Brink Of A Constitutional Crisis

Trump obviously believes that he is above the law. He must be quickly and clearly shown that he isn't.

Federal District courts will keep him in check with this kind of stuff. But he is also offending the Senate and Congress with his EXECUTIVE ORDER T.V. reality show he has been putting on. When the reality is that a WALL will have to go through congress FIRST. Anything that has anything to do with TAXPAYER dollars has to go through congress for approval first. Which include "sanctuary cities" paying for the wall, and this ridiculous executive order for two states (he lost) to do an investigation into voter fraud. The states won't pay for it, meaning the taxpayers of this country would have to pay for it, meaning again it would have to go through congress first.

Anything to THRILL the mass's--LOL

Congress has already committed 15 billion for the wall dufas.

Haven't passed jack shit yet... Many GOP fiscal conservatives are getting worried...

What spending cuts is he bringing to pay for the wall?

He'll get the money child, don't worry your little head about it.