In any of those countries do the laws of the country specify a single ' State Religion '?
The Muslim Ban Has Begun!
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
In any of those countries do the laws of the country specify a single ' State Religion '?
But not as high up the pecking order as the EU itself, I'd imagine.
good question... but entirely irrelevant...and one perhaps you could take up with the UN , the EU and any one that knows I guess...
So none of the 7 are Muslim countries?
imagine away....But not as high up the pecking order as the EU itself, I'd imagine.
don't know and don't care.. not up to me to decide.
It is up to the UN and the EU and heads of other nations including China to work out how deceptive and disingenuous the Trump administration therefore the USA, is being not me...
The last person I want watching me or my wife, in any meaning of the phrase, is "grab em by the pussy" Trump...
Doesn't matter - it is unconstitutional to have a "religious test" for entry to, or holding position in, the United States.
Have a read of how it fails the USA
1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.
2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.
3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*
4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.
5. Family Reunification Rights.* The tragic stories of separated families bring out yet another constitutional right at stake that few have commented on: The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the importance of the fundamental right to family relationships. Family reunification is also of primary importance in immigration law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges emphasized how multiple constitutional rights magnified the harm of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. “The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. The constitutional violations in that case were made worse because there was discrimination—over something as important as the fundamental right to marry. Today, these constitutional violations are worse because the order discriminates on the basis of religion, nationality, and ethnicity, over rights as important as due process, the right to family relationships, and the right not to be excluded unlawfully. The equal protection, due process, First Amendment, habeas, and fundamental rights violations that we describe are important standing along but even more devastating to the legality of the order when seen in tandem. As we have written in a 2015 article, constitutional rights magnify their power when they share reinforcing interests.*
There will always be cases where national security interests outweigh constitutional rights. But those should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not as a ban that stereotypes and discriminates against an entire group of people. Lawmakers should step in to reaffirm through legislation that national security regulation can be done right, and constitutionally. *
src: see post #319
It's on the net for any one to see... any one in most of the whole world can read it any time they like....
1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.
2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.
3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. A lack of due process under the Fifth and 14th amendments for those affected should not be hard to show, considering the hasty, sweeping changes enacted without administrative process or legislation, confusion on the ground, and reports of outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*
4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.
5. Family Reunification Rights.* The tragic stories of separated families bring out yet another constitutional right at stake that few have commented on: The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the importance of the fundamental right to family relationships. Family reunification is also of primary importance in immigration law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges emphasized how multiple constitutional rights magnified the harm of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. “The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. The constitutional violations in that case were made worse because there was discrimination—over something as important as the fundamental right to marry. Today, these constitutional violations are worse because the order discriminates on the basis of religion, nationality, and ethnicity, over rights as important as due process, the right to family relationships, and the right not to be excluded unlawfully. The equal protection, due process, First Amendment, habeas, and fundamental rights violations that we describe are important standing along but even more devastating to the legality of the order when seen in tandem. As we have written in a 2015 article, constitutional rights magnify their power when they share reinforcing interests.*
There will always be cases where national security interests outweigh constitutional rights. But those should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not as a ban that stereotypes and discriminates against an entire group of people. Lawmakers should step in to reaffirm through legislation that national security regulation can be done right, and constitutionally. *
src: see post #319
It's on the net for any one to see... any one in most of the whole world can read it any time they like....
Last edited:
If not resolved the EU may place sanctions against the USA....and look after it's own defense...(NATO) IMO
I would expect the UN or the EU to issue an ultimatum like: Fix your problem with Trump or face sanctions. Any time now... maybe 7 days tops...
Do you think I am dreaming?
oh and Trumps businesses over seas will be worth squat diddly as the USA dollar crashes big time...
The problem is Presidents of the EU have to be taken seriously as do all the other national heads. Trumps Muslim ban is terribly offensive to so many....and illegal to boot...a reaction is definitely going to occur big time...
What makes it so bad is that trump can not rationally justify his order... and that really hurts...
Do you think I am dreaming?
oh and Trumps businesses over seas will be worth squat diddly as the USA dollar crashes big time...
The problem is Presidents of the EU have to be taken seriously as do all the other national heads. Trumps Muslim ban is terribly offensive to so many....and illegal to boot...a reaction is definitely going to occur big time...
What makes it so bad is that trump can not rationally justify his order... and that really hurts...
Last edited:
There was no need to repeat the whole post, QQ. Anyone would think you're seeking attention.
Yes.
Neither the UN nor EU is there to tell how the US to govern itself, unless it is violating international law or is an imminent danger to its own people or the people of other countries.
Neither seems to be the case with the US. Isolationism is not an internationally illegal policy, nor is going against the US constitution. The US people elected Trump and he is doing what he promised in his campaign.
So yes, I think you are dreaming.
Bells
Staff member
Actually, you are wrong. Again.
Her role is to abide by the Constitution and the law.
Her role is not to do the President's bidding, especially when said bidding would result in her breaking her oath and the law.
You do understand this, yes? She took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. She instructed her staff to do the same and to not defend Trump's immigration ban because said ban was and is illegal and unconstitutional. Ie, she did her job.
She took the oath that AG's and lawyers have to take.
The Oath of Office can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
I would suggest you read it.
Well, given that Iran is officially an Islamic Republic, I'd say yes.
They're just foolishly following Trump's instructions. Some people have a tendency to follow charismatic people rather than think for themselves.
Thank you, but―
―yeah, you know, whatever you say, Sarkus:
Because, you know, you're believable.
So where in what I previously said do I suggest that the AG is obliged to lie?
I have not said nor suggested that she should ignore what she believes and lie, but merely to defend it to the best of her abilities. If those abilities are limited then so be it, but others may well disagree with her and feel they may be able to defend it without lying.
So no, I have not said, nor suggested, that she be obliged to lie.
Nor do I expect you to simply believe me, Tiassa, but instead simply to interpret what I said correctly.
I have not said nor suggested that she should ignore what she believes and lie, but merely to defend it to the best of her abilities. If those abilities are limited then so be it, but others may well disagree with her and feel they may be able to defend it without lying.
So no, I have not said, nor suggested, that she be obliged to lie.
Nor do I expect you to simply believe me, Tiassa, but instead simply to interpret what I said correctly.
You don't read too good...
Of course the USA has broken International law with Trumps order. Not only have they broken it they have spat on it. He has even proven culpability
Yep 7 days top - threat of sanctions.... If not already
Last edited:
From the post (my explanation) that you failed to read...
International:
There is clear breaches of International Law regarding the Geneva conventions which the USA has voluntarily entered into since 1957
Declared by the UN as mean spirited and Illegal as per international Human rights Law.
Further as a reaction to the executive order issued by Trump, and how this order was further reinforced as intended and valid by the sacking of the AG who attempted to mitigate the disaster about to unfold, Trump, after being informed of the EU's concern refused to rescind his order thus further validating and demonstrating his deliberate and culpable intent. ( doing so with full knowledge of consequence)
so it is no longer just an impulsive error of judgement but a culpable and deliberate act.
you can verify the issue from link on post #309
International:
There is clear breaches of International Law regarding the Geneva conventions which the USA has voluntarily entered into since 1957
Declared by the UN as mean spirited and Illegal as per international Human rights Law.
Further as a reaction to the executive order issued by Trump, and how this order was further reinforced as intended and valid by the sacking of the AG who attempted to mitigate the disaster about to unfold, Trump, after being informed of the EU's concern refused to rescind his order thus further validating and demonstrating his deliberate and culpable intent. ( doing so with full knowledge of consequence)
so it is no longer just an impulsive error of judgement but a culpable and deliberate act.
you can verify the issue from link on post #309
you really don't get it do you?
If she simply resigned she would not have fulfilled her obligation to protect and defend the constitution as per her oath of office.
By doing as she has she has managed to fulfill her obligations to the best of her ability until she could no longer do so due to being sacked.
It really isn't that hard ... to see how easy it is for people to go all "thingo" when discussing Trump...
but it is really very simple.
She has performed her duty to the USA and deserves a medal for doing it so well.