Trump said he might have to close Mosques :D

[protectionist]

At least I cite FACTS to base my argument

I already posted the Supremacy Clause (a few times)...and highlighted the supremacy statement of it in blue, bold , size 7 print. What more do you want ? A tattoo of it on your chest ?

Are you saying this is not the actual Article 6, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) ? What ARE you saying ?

 

[SwimExpert]

At least I cite FACTS to base my argument

I already posted the Supremacy Clause (a few times)...and highlighted the supremacy statement of it in blue, bold , size 7 print. What more do you want ? A tattoo of it on your chest ?

Are you saying this is not the actual Article 6, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) ? What ARE you saying ?

I'm saying there's no such thing as a schnozberry, no matter how desperately you try to dream one up.

 

[Avatar4321]

The supremacy clause has nothing to do with religion. You don't get to rip away a religions status as a religion simply Because you want to violate the constitution

You got it backwards. A religion has nothing to do with the supremacy clause. If a religion (or anything else) is supremacist, then it's in violation of the Supremacy clause, and as such is unconstitutional. Such is the case with Islam. You don't get to rip away the Supremacy Clause under ANY conditions.

PS - is this what you think Italy and other countries have done ? You think they ripped away Islam's status as a religion, because they wanted to violate something ?

They have no religious freedom. What they do doesn't matter to us because we do.

 

[Avatar4321]

He'll first need to amend the Constitution to repeal the First Amendment.

This whole thread has refuted that dumb notion over 100 times already. Go back to sleep.

By refuting you mean completely ignored, yeah sure you refuted it.

But if you are using the actual definition then nowhere in your insane ramblings have you refuted it. You cannot deny first amendment protection. Period.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's never been refuted, and it never will be. You're living in a self-imposed fake artificial pretend fantasy dream bubble world of Denialism. Like the Birfers and the "Hitler's living in Argentina" people.

Good thing Amendment One is actually written down so the rest of us don't forget, huh?

Compared to the Supremacy Clause, your so cool Amendment One, ain't so cool. Actually, it has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

You just posted one of the most idiotic posts in the history of this forum.

Says the person who doesn't have a clue what the supremacy clause.

You do realize that if your deranged theory was credible that because the First amendment is an amendment to the Constitution that contains the Supremacy clause it would trump the Supremacy clause if there were ever a conflict don't you?

See that's the funny thing about amendments, they supersede what they amend.

But as the Supremacy clause has no conflict with the first amendment it's a moot point. Supremacy Clause just grants Federal law priority over state laws.

 

[protectionist]

By refuting you mean completely ignored, yeah sure you refuted it.

But if you are using the actual definition then nowhere in your insane ramblings have you refuted it. You cannot deny first amendment protection. Period.

I don't know what you're even talking about. Doesn't make any sense. You think the 1st Amendement stops the Supremacy Clause from outlawing supremacisms ? You think it doesn't do that ? What's the matter ? You don't understand English ? It says > This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (Not Islam or its Sharia law)

I most certainly CAN cannot deny first amendment protection, and most certainly do just that, when the first amendment activity is illegal and unconstitutional. You are trying to push a very weak argument, which I already thoroughly refuted earlier in the thread. You seem to have not read the earlier posts, or you wouldn't be making such foolish statements. As I said before, (since you're too lazy to read the earlier posts >>

The very weak 1st amendment has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

All you're doing here is adding to the stupidity of other posters who also tried to say the same thing you're saying now. You carry no weight here.

 

[protectionist]

It's never been refuted, and it never will be. You're living in a self-imposed fake artificial pretend fantasy dream bubble world of Denialism. Like the Birfers and the "Hitler's living in Argentina" people.

Good thing Amendment One is actually written down so the rest of us don't forget, huh?

Compared to the Supremacy Clause, your so cool Amendment One, ain't so cool. Actually, it has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

You just posted one of the most idiotic posts in the history of this forum.

Says the person who doesn't have a clue what the supremacy clause.

You do realize that if your deranged theory was credible that because the First amendment is an amendment to the Constitution that contains the Supremacy clause it would trump the Supremacy clause if there were ever a conflict don't you?

See that's the funny thing about amendments, they supersede what they amend.

But as the Supremacy clause has no conflict with the first amendment it's a moot point. Supremacy Clause just grants Federal law priority over state laws.

LOL. The 1st amendment trumps the Supremacy clause huh. HA HA HA..Now I've heard them all. This is the winner.

EARTH TO AVATAR; NOTHING trumps the Supremacy Clause. As I said earlier (some people have to be told twice), the weak 1st amendment is trumped by numerous exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

Yeah, I know all about your age-old, little talking point. ("Supremacy Clause just grants Federal law priority over state laws.") I know exactly what it says. It's WRONG. I've been hearing liberal loonies recite it for decades. But no matter how many times you may recite it, or hear it on MSNBC, or whatever other liberal cesspool media you watch, you can never erase away the primary function of the Supremacy Clause. That is to establish Supremacy of the Constitution and the laws of the United States over EVERYTHING ELSE (including Islam or anything else that goes around masquerading as a religion)

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

 

[deltex1]

Donald Trump: 'Strongly consider' shutting mosques - CNNPolitics.com

now we talkin'

...i'm onboard

He also said he would put Isis terrorists in their graves...one and all. Let's make that the main plan.

 

[protectionist]

I'm saying there's no such thing as a schnozberry, no matter how desperately you try to dream one up.

In other words, you're saying NOTHING at all.

 

[Vandalshandle]

He is going to blow up all the mosques, and make ISIS pay for doing it.....

But, I have to wonder if he is going to do that before, or after, deporting 11 million illegal aliens and build a 2,000 mile wall at Mexico's expense? Also, is any of this going to interfere with his creating more jobs than any other president?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I guess that I am a little surprised that Trump has not revealed a plan to make all Muslims wear a yellow badge on their clothes, and be required to live in a certain closed off section of town..

 

[Flopper]

Unconstitutional.

Not only is it not unconstitutional to close the mosques, it is unconstitutional to allow them to be open, and that has been the case for 226 years. Islam is a supremacism. It is the largest and most clear-cut supremacism in the world. As such, it is 100% ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so says US Constitution Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause >>

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

Under SCOTUS definition of a religion Islam would certainly qualify as a religion as well as practically any cult in the country. The court has been extremely tolerant as what constitutes a religion. If Trump issued and executive order to close Mosques, it would be shot down by the courts before the ink dried and Congress would probably draft a bill on impeachment.

Don't you people realize Trump is pulling your chain? He may not be a constitutional scholar but he has at least some vague knowledge of the 1st amendment.

Religion

Trump, playing his Ode to Morons, for his mental children...

Today people

The only way this could be done within ten miles of the Constitution is to declare that Islam is not a real religion, I reckon. Does anyone see that happening?

That would open up some interesting avenues regarding Scientology™, though...
.

And that wouldn't happen because of how the Supreme Court defines religion. Any attempt to abridge American's freedom of assembly and worship would be blocked by the courts as a gross violation of the constitution.

The Constitution was written for one purpose, to restrain the federal government from doing exactly what Trump is suggesting. It's really amazing how quickly so called patriots are willing to trash the very principals the country was founded on.

There would be no greater victor for the terrorist than the closing of Mosques in American. It would confirm to American Muslims what ISIS and Al qaeda have been saying for years.

 

[Flopper]

By refuting you mean completely ignored, yeah sure you refuted it.

But if you are using the actual definition then nowhere in your insane ramblings have you refuted it. You cannot deny first amendment protection. Period.

I don't know what you're even talking about. Doesn't make any sense. You think the 1st Amendement stops the Supremacy Clause from outlawing supremacisms ? You think it doesn't do that ? What's the matter ? You don't understand English ? It says > This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (Not Islam or its Sharia law)

I most certainly CAN cannot deny first amendment protection, and most certainly do just that, when the first amendment activity is illegal and unconstitutional. You are trying to push a very weak argument, which I already thoroughly refuted earlier in the thread. You seem to have not read the earlier posts, or you wouldn't be making such foolish statements. As I said before, (since you're too lazy to read the earlier posts >>

The very weak 1st amendment has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

All you're doing here is adding to the stupidity of other posters who also tried to say the same thing you're saying now. You carry no weight here.

There is only one opinion that really matters in interpreting the constitution and that's the Supreme Court. One would have to be totally disconnected from reality to believe the court would not block closing American Mosques because they may harbor terrorist.

 

[Boss]

I guess that I am a little surprised that Trump has not revealed a plan to make all Muslims wear a yellow badge on their clothes...

He's reserving that for you yellow-bellied liberals who are too afraid to fight terrorism. That way, we can all mock you in public. It also lets us know who not to let into the bunker. Good luck!

 

[Boss]

By refuting you mean completely ignored, yeah sure you refuted it.

But if you are using the actual definition then nowhere in your insane ramblings have you refuted it. You cannot deny first amendment protection. Period.

I don't know what you're even talking about. Doesn't make any sense. You think the 1st Amendement stops the Supremacy Clause from outlawing supremacisms ? You think it doesn't do that ? What's the matter ? You don't understand English ? It says > This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (Not Islam or its Sharia law)

I most certainly CAN cannot deny first amendment protection, and most certainly do just that, when the first amendment activity is illegal and unconstitutional. You are trying to push a very weak argument, which I already thoroughly refuted earlier in the thread. You seem to have not read the earlier posts, or you wouldn't be making such foolish statements. As I said before, (since you're too lazy to read the earlier posts >>

The very weak 1st amendment has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

All you're doing here is adding to the stupidity of other posters who also tried to say the same thing you're saying now. You carry no weight here.

There is only one opinion that really matters in interpreting the constitution and that's the Supreme Court. One would have to be totally disconnected from reality to believe the court would not block closing American Mosques because they may harbor terrorist.

That's the really cool thing about Executive Orders. They can be implemented immediately while SCOTUS cases can take years to work their way up. It's how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR interned the Japanese... read some ******* history, ass munch.

 

[Sallow]

Consider this: not all Muslims are extremists. Can we agree on this?

No. When "the crap starts" they have to join with the Terrorists. They are only "laying low" until.

Remember that one when you are thanking vets for their service.

Muslims in the United States military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

By refuting you mean completely ignored, yeah sure you refuted it.

But if you are using the actual definition then nowhere in your insane ramblings have you refuted it. You cannot deny first amendment protection. Period.

I don't know what you're even talking about. Doesn't make any sense. You think the 1st Amendement stops the Supremacy Clause from outlawing supremacisms ? You think it doesn't do that ? What's the matter ? You don't understand English ? It says > This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (Not Islam or its Sharia law)

I most certainly CAN cannot deny first amendment protection, and most certainly do just that, when the first amendment activity is illegal and unconstitutional. You are trying to push a very weak argument, which I already thoroughly refuted earlier in the thread. You seem to have not read the earlier posts, or you wouldn't be making such foolish statements. As I said before, (since you're too lazy to read the earlier posts >>

The very weak 1st amendment has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

All you're doing here is adding to the stupidity of other posters who also tried to say the same thing you're saying now. You carry no weight here.

There is only one opinion that really matters in interpreting the constitution and that's the Supreme Court. One would have to be totally disconnected from reality to believe the court would not block closing American Mosques because they may harbor terrorist.

That's the really cool thing about Executive Orders. They can be implemented immediately while SCOTUS cases can take years to work their way up. It's how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR interned the Japanese... read some ******* history, ass munch.

This is a tiny bit different, colon chewer. Rump is not a POTUS, he's a (pretend) candidate. And by flagrantly exhibiting this level of contempt for as basic a foundation of this country as the First Amendment is, he's just eliminated himself from any legitimate chance of having the office.

Imagine a candidate who declared he might have to have government take over the media (including this message board). Same thing. Or a candidate who declared he'd suspend the Second Amendment and make all guns illegal. Again, same thing. Run down the document anywhere you like -- a candidate that says he would bring back slavery. Or make alcohol illegal again. Or take away the right to vote for women. Etc etc etc.

The first thing, literally the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution; in this statement Rump admits he can't even take the ******* oath of office. And that's literally Day One.

 

[Flopper]

By refuting you mean completely ignored, yeah sure you refuted it.

But if you are using the actual definition then nowhere in your insane ramblings have you refuted it. You cannot deny first amendment protection. Period.

I don't know what you're even talking about. Doesn't make any sense. You think the 1st Amendement stops the Supremacy Clause from outlawing supremacisms ? You think it doesn't do that ? What's the matter ? You don't understand English ? It says > This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (Not Islam or its Sharia law)

I most certainly CAN cannot deny first amendment protection, and most certainly do just that, when the first amendment activity is illegal and unconstitutional. You are trying to push a very weak argument, which I already thoroughly refuted earlier in the thread. You seem to have not read the earlier posts, or you wouldn't be making such foolish statements. As I said before, (since you're too lazy to read the earlier posts >>

The very weak 1st amendment has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

All you're doing here is adding to the stupidity of other posters who also tried to say the same thing you're saying now. You carry no weight here.

There is only one opinion that really matters in interpreting the constitution and that's the Supreme Court. One would have to be totally disconnected from reality to believe the court would not block closing American Mosques because they may harbor terrorist.

That's the really cool thing about Executive Orders. They can be implemented immediately while SCOTUS cases can take years to work their way up. It's how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR interned the Japanese... read some ******* history, ass munch.

The US Supreme can and has issued injunctions to give the court time to hear a case. However, the more likely course would be a federal district court would enter an injunction which only take hours. Then schedule a hearing of the case. After the lower court ruled then it could go to the Supreme Court.

 

[Pogo]

I guess that I am a little surprised that Trump has not revealed a plan to make all Muslims wear a yellow badge on their clothes, and be required to live in a certain closed off section of town..

Well, your key word is "plan". Rump's not into "plans" so much as sound bites. Now if he can find a phrase that incites the same old rabid crowd of drones, I'm sure he'll work that in. "They're rapists" is already taken so he'll have to come up with something else, but he's off to a flying start with the closing down mosques. And the drones just eat it up.

I'm sure he'd kick off the whole shebang with a Kristallnacht, in great big neon letters. It's gonna be huuuuge.

 

[Skylar]

By refuting you mean completely ignored, yeah sure you refuted it.

But if you are using the actual definition then nowhere in your insane ramblings have you refuted it. You cannot deny first amendment protection. Period.

I don't know what you're even talking about. Doesn't make any sense. You think the 1st Amendement stops the Supremacy Clause from outlawing supremacisms ? You think it doesn't do that ? What's the matter ? You don't understand English ? It says > This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (Not Islam or its Sharia law)

I most certainly CAN cannot deny first amendment protection, and most certainly do just that, when the first amendment activity is illegal and unconstitutional. You are trying to push a very weak argument, which I already thoroughly refuted earlier in the thread. You seem to have not read the earlier posts, or you wouldn't be making such foolish statements. As I said before, (since you're too lazy to read the earlier posts >>

The very weak 1st amendment has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

All you're doing here is adding to the stupidity of other posters who also tried to say the same thing you're saying now. You carry no weight here.

There is only one opinion that really matters in interpreting the constitution and that's the Supreme Court. One would have to be totally disconnected from reality to believe the court would not block closing American Mosques because they may harbor terrorist.

That's the really cool thing about Executive Orders. They can be implemented immediately while SCOTUS cases can take years to work their way up. It's how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR interned the Japanese... read some ******* history, ass munch.

The US Supreme can and has issued injunctions to give the court time to hear a case. However, the more likely course would be a federal district court would enter an injunction which only take hours. Then schedule a hearing of the case. After the lower court ruled then it could go to the Supreme Court.

Its amusing how little our would be legal experts actually know about the law.