Did the Hawaiian judge who blocked Trump's latest EO, ever point out which law(s) it violated?

[bripat9643]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... 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."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

The Constitution is not an international document. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from getting Visa's to enter the country. He also cancelled the Iranians Visa's that were currently in the country at the time.

Jimmy Carter Banned Iranian Immigrants

TL;DR: Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants was legal because Iran had showed itself an enemy of the US by holding US citizens hostage, and because it was small in scope and a reaction to a specific event. None of that applies to Trump's EO. Carter also never bragged about banning all Muslims prior to enacting the limited ban. That's why Carter didn't violate the US Constitution like Trump did.

And Trump (unfortunately) is a US citizen, rendering your "it's not an intentional document" null and void.

Where does the Constitution, or the law Jimmy Carter used to pass his ban, say anything like that?

You're just making this stuff up as you go along.

 

[bripat9643]

No, the judge did not block the order simply because he felt like it. The judge cited the Establishment Clause. That's part of the 1st Amendment. That's part of the US Constitution. And yes, even the President of the United States has to abide by that. You know, just like how conservatives are always screaming that liberals and Democrats violate? I mean, there's more to the constitution than guns.

So there is a very clear legal ground to block a presidential executive order. Remember those? They're what conservatives have been attacking Obama for years over, saying he's ignore the balance of our government and making laws when that's the purview of Congress.

Umm, the Establishment Clause refers to religion.

And Trump's EO had nothing to do with religion. It was directed at terrorism. Or are you now trying to tell us that a certain religion is responsible for terrorism?

As I suspected, the judge made no reference to any law that Trump's EO was violating. He simply decided he didn't personally like it, so he blocked it. And then made irrelevant excuses.

In spite of the fact he campaigned on banning Muslims? Guess you forgot that.

Whatever Trump campaigned on is utterly irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... 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."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

Wrong, you witless turd, it doesn't apply to foreigners who do not reside on U.S. soil. You're claiming that the USA can enforce its laws in other countries. Are we obligated to enforce the 1st Amendment in Germany where it's illegal to criticize Islam? How about the 2nd Amendment? Are we supposed to enforce that in Europe?

You're theory is so pathetic and stupid that it's wonder you dare to post it to a public forum.

 

[bripat9643]

Among others, Trump violated the 1st Amendment - freedom of religion.

Wrong, moron. I'll repeat this for the 1000th time: The First Amendment does not protect foreigners who are not residing on U.S. soil.

And you're wrong for the 1000th time, moron.

You failed to prove otherwise, imbecile.

First, the 1st Amendment restricts the power of the US government, which last time I checked, was not a foreigner. Second, the language in the Amendment address freedoms of people, not citizens. If it were meant to only apply to US citizens, they probably would have used the word "citizens". Because words have meaning.

Only a retard would imagine the the US government was olbigated to enforce out laws in foreign countries. You're arguing that foreigners residing in foreign countries enjoy all the protects of the Bill of Rights and that our government is obligated to enforce them. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that our government is obligated to enforce the 1st Amendment in Germany and England. Did you know both countries have a state sponsored religion? Do you believe the US government should wage war on them to enforce the 1st Amendment?

Just admit that you're a fucking retard.

"The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

The Framers didn't even mention the right to vote, moron. Notice that the decision refers to "resident aliens," not foreigners residing on foreign soil.

That obviously went right over your head.

 

[MaryL]

Well, federal laws are merely suggestions states can ignore at their convenience. Why do we bother to call ourselves the "UNITED STATES" anymore? Clearly we are NOT. Gay rights to marijuana, the feds and the individual states aren't working together for the PEOPLE. What a pathetic joke this county is becoming. It's breaking, this used to be a UNION of like minded people, with common goals and a common spirit.

 

[wjmacguffin]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... 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."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

The Constitution is not an international document. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from getting Visa's to enter the country. He also cancelled the Iranians Visa's that were currently in the country at the time.

Jimmy Carter Banned Iranian Immigrants

TL;DR: Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants was legal because Iran had showed itself an enemy of the US by holding US citizens hostage, and because it was small in scope and a reaction to a specific event. None of that applies to Trump's EO. Carter also never bragged about banning all Muslims prior to enacting the limited ban. That's why Carter didn't violate the US Constitution like Trump did.

And Trump (unfortunately) is a US citizen, rendering your "it's not an intentional document" null and void.

Where does the Constitution, or the law Jimmy Carter used to pass his ban, say anything like that?

You're just making this stuff up as you go along.

If you cannot click through the link I provided, then I am done with you. Have fun staying in your bubble!

 

[wjmacguffin]

No, the judge did not block the order simply because he felt like it. The judge cited the Establishment Clause. That's part of the 1st Amendment. That's part of the US Constitution. And yes, even the President of the United States has to abide by that. You know, just like how conservatives are always screaming that liberals and Democrats violate? I mean, there's more to the constitution than guns.

So there is a very clear legal ground to block a presidential executive order. Remember those? They're what conservatives have been attacking Obama for years over, saying he's ignore the balance of our government and making laws when that's the purview of Congress.

Umm, the Establishment Clause refers to religion.

And Trump's EO had nothing to do with religion. It was directed at terrorism. Or are you now trying to tell us that a certain religion is responsible for terrorism?

As I suspected, the judge made no reference to any law that Trump's EO was violating. He simply decided he didn't personally like it, so he blocked it. And then made irrelevant excuses.

In spite of the fact he campaigned on banning Muslims? Guess you forgot that.

Whatever Trump campaigned on is utterly irrelevant.

If you read the judge's decision, you'll see the court cases requiring the judge to use a law's context (how it was made) in deciding it's constitutionality, and how Trump's campaign is actually relevant. But that's pointless, isn't it? Even if you took the time to read, you wouldn't agree with it because it disagrees with your opinion and therefore it's wrong, or biased, or fake news, or liberal, or whatever excuse flavor of the month is most in vogue with you. Sad, really.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Among others, Trump violated the 1st Amendment - freedom of religion.

Wrong, moron. I'll repeat this for the 1000th time: The First Amendment does not protect foreigners who are not residing on U.S. soil.

And you're wrong for the 1000th time, moron.

You failed to prove otherwise, imbecile.

First, the 1st Amendment restricts the power of the US government, which last time I checked, was not a foreigner. Second, the language in the Amendment address freedoms of people, not citizens. If it were meant to only apply to US citizens, they probably would have used the word "citizens". Because words have meaning.

Only a retard would imagine the the US government was olbigated to enforce out laws in foreign countries. You're arguing that foreigners residing in foreign countries enjoy all the protects of the Bill of Rights and that our government is obligated to enforce them. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that our government is obligated to enforce the 1st Amendment in Germany and England. Did you know both countries have a state sponsored religion? Do you believe the US government should wage war on them to enforce the 1st Amendment?

Just admit that you're a fucking retard.

"The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

The Framers didn't even mention the right to vote, moron. Notice that the decision refers to "resident aliens," not foreigners residing on foreign soil.

That obviously went right over your head.

Le sigh. I'll try to speak more slowly and use smaller words for your dumb ass. I'll even use bullet points for easy digestion:

• I'm NOT saying the US Constitution applies to other countries.
• I NEVER argued that the Bill of Rights applies to citizens of other countries who are in other countries.
• I get why you had to say I said those two things even though I didn't. You were losing the debate, so you needed to make shit up so you could "win".
• I am saying the US Constitution applies to everyone on US soil, citizens and non-citizens at the same time, because it limits the power of our government.
• That means the Bill of Rights (and its limits on government) applies with ALL PEOPLE who are in the US.
• If you'd like to disagree with an Ivy League law school over a legal matter, at least read the link and find specific points to attack. Then go argue you know more about medicine than your doctor.

There's one last big thing here, so please read this carefully before you start frothing at the mouth: The US Constitution applies to Trump, and this whole thing is about what Trump is doing with his executive order. As with putting words in my mouth above, I understand why you want to ignore this crucial point. You can't defend it. So you change the subject and start screaming that immigrants and visa holders don't have any rights. But the constitution is there to limit the power of government, not just to give citizens rights.

 

[wjmacguffin]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... 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."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

The Constitution is not an international document. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from getting Visa's to enter the country. He also cancelled the Iranians Visa's that were currently in the country at the time.

Jimmy Carter Banned Iranian Immigrants

TL;DR: Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants was legal because Iran had showed itself an enemy of the US by holding US citizens hostage, and because it was small in scope and a reaction to a specific event. None of that applies to Trump's EO. Carter also never bragged about banning all Muslims prior to enacting the limited ban. That's why Carter didn't violate the US Constitution like Trump did.

And Trump (unfortunately) is a US citizen, rendering your "it's not an intentional document" null and void.

I never said the document is 'intentional'. Bragging about banning all Muslims is irrelevant to Trump's Constitutional EO. Unvetted refugees and Muslim immigrants are not Citizens and therefore the Constitution doesn't apply to them. They are a security risk from those countries originally targeted by the non-natural born Citizen president, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarka.

The judge's decision showed case law requiring him to use context (in this case, Trump's campaign statements *and* statements made after he won). Read the decision and get back to us, okay?

Immigrants go through a 1-2 year vetting process. Saying they're unvetted is not just incorrect, it's pretty fucking dumb.

The US Constitution *does* apply to non-citizens. Not only was that clearly decided by the Supreme Court, the US Constitution limits the power of the US government. This is done, settled, decided, and over with. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's false.

The Trump administration failed to show these nations are more of a security risk than other countries not covered by the EO such as Saudi Arabia (home to most of the 9/11 terrorists).

If you still think Obama wasn't a US citizen, then you are beyond dumb. You wallow in ignorance like a pig in shit. Go masturbate to InfoWars some more and leave the debates to adults.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Or did he simply say, "That causes too many problems here at home, so I'm invalidating it"?

Can judges overrule Presidents now without grounds, simply because they feel like it?

P.S. The ruling was 43 pages. Yet it was released less than two hours after the hearing. That guy must have been a hellacious typist.

Or... had he already made his decision, before the hearing even began?

**NOTE** This thread isn't about immigration, it's about judges trying to strike down Presidential Executive Orders with no apparent legal grounds to do so. Please don't move it to a forum that almost nobody reads.

---------------------------------

News from The Associated Press

Mar 15, 7:13 PM EDT

The Latest: Judge who put ban on hold was nominated by Obama

The Latest on legal challenges to the Trump administration's revised travel ban (all times Pacific unless noted):

4:10 p.m.

The judge in Hawaii who put President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on hold was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson got his nod in 2012 and is currently the only Native Hawaiian judge serving on the federal bench and the fourth in U.S. history.

He received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1991.

His 43-page decision Wednesday was released less than two hours after the hearing ended.

I mean, who cares? This is all about partisan politics now. Stuff the law, stuff the constitution. When Obama came to pick a Supreme Court justice the Republicans said "fuck you" so now the Democrats are saying "fuck you".

Unless of course you want to change this partisan politics nonsense and change the way people vote to stop two parties controlling everything and acting like this....

That's already changing, because the Democrat party is imploding.

At first I thought it was bad bad bad, but now I'm not so sure.

With just one party, politicians can be judged on merits alone better.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The federal statute 8 USC Sec 1152 (f) actually supports Trump’s position 100% and is on point.

The President has virtually unlimited discretion in determining who enters the country.

There was nothing legally wrong with the first ban, let alone the second.

Um, no. The US Constitution applies to Trump, the government, and in most (but not all) cases, all people regardless of citizenship. Read the judge's decision to see why he believes the ban is unconstitutional.

But man, do you even read things? 8 USC Sec 1152 starts by saying, "... 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."
8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states

The Constitution is not an international document. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from getting Visa's to enter the country. He also cancelled the Iranians Visa's that were currently in the country at the time.

Jimmy Carter Banned Iranian Immigrants

TL;DR: Carter's ban on Iranian immigrants was legal because Iran had showed itself an enemy of the US by holding US citizens hostage, and because it was small in scope and a reaction to a specific event. None of that applies to Trump's EO. Carter also never bragged about banning all Muslims prior to enacting the limited ban. That's why Carter didn't violate the US Constitution like Trump did.

And Trump (unfortunately) is a US citizen, rendering your "it's not an intentional document" null and void.

I never said the document is 'intentional'. Bragging about banning all Muslims is irrelevant to Trump's Constitutional EO. Unvetted refugees and Muslim immigrants are not Citizens and therefore the Constitution doesn't apply to them. They are a security risk from those countries originally targeted by the non-natural born Citizen president, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarka.

The judge's decision showed case law requiring him to use context (in this case, Trump's campaign statements *and* statements made after he won). Read the decision and get back to us, okay?

Immigrants go through a 1-2 year vetting process. Saying they're unvetted is not just incorrect, it's pretty fucking dumb.

The US Constitution *does* apply to non-citizens. Not only was that clearly decided by the Supreme Court, the US Constitution limits the power of the US government. This is done, settled, decided, and over with. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's false.

The Trump administration failed to show these nations are more of a security risk than other countries not covered by the EO such as Saudi Arabia (home to most of the 9/11 terrorists).

If you still think Obama wasn't a US citizen, then you are beyond dumb. You wallow in ignorance like a pig in shit. Go masturbate to InfoWars some more and leave the debates to adults.

No, there is no proof Obama was/is an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. Also, these refugees are not being vetted. The treacherous Jew owned MSM has indoctrinated you well into believing they have been. The truth is that these diseased Muslim scum have no papertrails and that's why we need to have the travel ban enforced on those countries originally targeted by Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarka. Here's an example:

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/diseased-refugees-obtaining-ssns-and-passports-upon-arrival-in-us/

Now, show me in the Constitution specifically where it applies to non Citizens residing in foreign countries. It doesn't!


Now an education lesson from Steve McGarrett, American patriot of White European heritage. Trumps executive order in no way violates the Establishment Clause:

First, the Executive Order does not even address religion, whatsoever. Second, the order has a secular purpose: our national security. The EO, on its face, serves secular purposes, and no amount of rehashing of miscellaneous campaign trail commentary can change that. The mere suggestion of a possible religious or anti-religious motive, mined from past comments of a political candidate or his supporters, and intermixed with various secular purposes, is not enough to doom government action (along with all subsequent attempts to address the same subject matter). All 'that Lemon requires’ is that government action have ‘a secular purpose,’ not that its purpose be ‘exclusively secular,’ and a policy is invalid under this test only if it ‘was motivated wholly by religious considerations.’ Read Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 680-81 & n.6 (1984).

You see, Trump's patriotic order singles out no religion for favor or disfavor. To conclude otherwise is unreasonable, and absurd. The terrorist hotbed six countries whose nationals are impacted by the pause were countries identified by President Obama and Congress as countries of particular concern. Policy disagreements, hurt feelings, and political agendas are not enough to support an Establishment Clause claim.

The court’s flawed order will invariably be appealed and the fact remains, the Executive Order is a lawful exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory authority to keep America safe from terrorism, and he will. America has no place for it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Well, federal laws are merely suggestions states can ignore at their convenience. Why do we bother to call ourselves the "UNITED STATES" anymore? Clearly we are NOT. Gay rights to marijuana, the feds and the individual states aren't working together for the PEOPLE. What a pathetic joke this county is becoming. It's breaking, this used to be a UNION of like minded people, with common goals and a common spirit.

That's pretty much true. The idea that states think they can flout legal Federal laws, is distressing.

That said, it's worth noting that the Fed govt has no authority to regulate or restrict majijuana. This is a rare instance where states are justified in ignoring Federal "law".