I thought the Supreme Court only offered their views, not an actual verdict/ruling...hence the "It is the OPINION of this court" preface to their decisions...
Nope, SCOTUS Rulings become LAW of the Land.... as in Heller and McDonald, That Scalea wrote, that states "The 2nd Amendment, is an Individual RIGHT." Once Ruled, only the SCOTUS can change the Ruling, Or the Constitution must be amended to force a Change in a SCOTUS Ruling.
That is a legalese way of ruling on the interpretation of the law in the case.. Those opinions are not law, but they do establish precedents that will (normally) have the force of law in that they are the interpretations of laws written and passed by legislators. At least that's how it's supposed to work. SCOTUS (nor any other court) does NOT make law in spite of certain factions braying about "activist" judges. The chore facing the justices is getting into the heads of those who wrote the laws in the first place. Heller provided the interpretation of EXISTING law that reinforced what 2A means now as it always has, and in effect told the world to stop with that sort of rubbish that DC tried to perpetrate on it's citizens. That battle is NOT over EXCEPT in DC. Other jurisdictions are going to have their restrictions tested in the courts, one by one, piece by piece, and it'll take a while.
What it all should come down to is simply this, U.S. Citizens have Constitutional rights above and beyond those of any other country and those rights COME FIRST ! Immigration has a very set method that was designed to work to keep the problems we are seeing from happening, and yet there are a shit load of folks that think we should just side step that process and open the flood gates! This has been happening for quite some time, even back when Shrub Jr was POTUS, it's gotten a lot worse under Obummer and the scofflaw actions he and his administration foisted on us all! The simple facts are we face a serious growing threat to our National Security that runs far deeper then the failed nation to the south, and this is the core of the problem the U.S. faces! Not temporary suspension of some ones rights who have no rights here! Bluster and Blaze away, no one can actually strike down a E.O. with out Congress AND SCOTUS on board, and Lesser Judges can only rule by the Sovereignty of the State in which they serve!
This thread is referring to Trump's strategy, not Obama's....a Tu Quoque criticism of Obama, doesn't get Trump off the hook for his own actions. There are significant differences between the two events, (Obama in 2011 and Trump in 2017). Although a SM member since Sep 2010, (and a periodic lurker for about a year before that), I can't recall the Obama travel ban coming up as a hot topic issue at that time; and a present search using the site's search engine has also failed to reveal anything about it here, other than this thread, and the current "immigration" thread. (perhaps a learned admin might have better luck than I. I suspect that the possible lack of interest by members here at the time, was because Obama was being high handed with brown people of the Islamic faith, (his own people, according to some folk here, ) Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions from what I understand, Obama's action was in response to a specific terrorist incident....(the Bowling Green terrorists in KY) The real story behind the Bowling Green terrorists ), and was quite narrow in scope, whereas, Trump has used his EO as a very blunt preemptive instrument, against all visitors from the banned countries, not just simply refugees. In addition, Trump's ban also targeted US green card holders from those proscribed countries. If you feel that Obama was acting unconstitutionally, then you are welcome to do the leg work to make that case.
Well, it was a a 6–3 decision which is seems to me to be an actually verdict but I am not any kind of lawyer. I did a bit more digging around but it's all about the same... "In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. Now, this ruling was only about the 'Executive Order 9066' as was made pretty clear by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black because "...the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent." So, I think what you might be referring to is the Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders. So, any other such type of order, if I understand it correctly, could/would be challenged and ruled upon but the precedent has already been made so it would be a real uphill battle and obviously the guidelines were safe guarding the nation holds more weight over individual rights (14th amendment). But, again...what do I know?
What, specifically, is unconstitutional about either the content of his EO or his use of the EO? Immigration bans by country are hardly something new with Trump, and using executive orders to set immigration policy is hardly beyond the scope of executive power. So what, specifically, is different in Trump's case, other than the fact that you don't like him?
The Constitution for the united States of America and the Bill of Rights are no longer in effect in their original form or where they conflict with the United Nations Treaty and other international agreements. Citizens of the several States of the Union who were formerly sovereigns protected by the common law are now United States citizens and are thus subjects to International Admiralty jurisdiction. CONgress did make the POTUS a dictator in 1933, and that hasn't changed to date. 12 U.S. Code § 95 - Emergency limitations and restrictions on business of members of Federal Reserve System; designation of legal holiday for national banking associations; exceptions; “State” defined And some history: President Lincoln was assassinated before he could complete plans for reestablishing constitutional government in the Southern States and end the martial rule by executive order, and the 14th Article in Amendment to the Constitution created a new citizenship status for the new expanded jurisdiction. New laws for the District of Columbia were established and passed by Congress in 1871, supplanting those established Feb. 27, 1801 and May 3, 1802. The District of Columbia was re-incorporated in 1872, and all states in the Union were reformed as Franchisees of the Federal Corporation so that a new Union of the United States could be created. The key to when the states became Federal Franchisees is related to the date when such states enacted the Field Code in law. The Field Code was a codification of the common law that was adopted first by New York and then by California in 1872, and shortly afterwards the Lieber Code was used to bring the United States into the 1874 Brussels Conference and into the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. President Lincoln knew that he had no authority to issue any executive order, and thus he commissioned General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) as a special field code to govern his actions under martial law and which justified the seizure of power, which extended the laws of the District of Columbia, and which fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond the boundaries of Washington, D.C. and into the several states. General Orders No. 100, also called the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, extended The Laws of War and International Law onto American soil, and the United States government became the presumed conqueror of the people and the land.The Southern states, by virtue of their secession from the Union, also ceased to exist sine die, and some state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned sine die, and thus, all the states which were parties to creating the Constitution ceased to exist. President Lincoln executed the first executive order written by any President on April 15, 1861, Executive Order 1, and the nation has been ruled by the President under executive order ever since. When Congress eventually did reconvene, it was reconvened under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief and not by Rules of Order for Parliamentary bodies or by Constitutional Law; placing the American people under martial rule ever since that national emergency declared by President Lincoln. The Constitution for the United States of America temporarily ceased to be the law of the land, and the President, Congress, and the Courts unlawfully presumed that they were free to remake the nation in their own image, whereas, lawfully, no constitutional provisions were in place which afforded power to any of the actions which were taken which presumed to place the nation under the new form of control. In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined, regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were then required by that act to be licensed by the government to do business. The National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 prove that in 1933, the United States Government formed under the executive privilege of the original martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of national emergency was declared under which United States citizens were named as the enemy to the government and the banking system as per the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The legal system provided for in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188. In 1945 the United States gave up any remaining national sovereignty when it signed the United Nations Treaty, making all American citizens subject to United Nations jurisdiction. The "constitution" of the United Nations may be compared to that of the old Soviet Union. Is anything really "Constitutional" these days? You decide.
The question is binary. Either they are both unconstitutional, in which case you conveniently had no problem with Obama doing the same thing (thus you're being a hypocrite) or they both are constitutional and you're being dishonest. Those are the only options. This is why you really shouldn't voice an opinion. The fact is that it is constitutional. Our constitution isn't binding on you. Your argument that the constitution applies to visa and green card holders is inapplicable on foreign soil. Unless, of course, you're trying to make the argument that our constitution applies to you in Australia? That's lunacy, but hey, start by telling your local government how the US constitution is your reigning document.
Please let me rephrase this a little.... I take it that last line was either sarcasm or some sort of joke. "Liberal(s)... start looking at it like an American." WHEN has a liberal EVER thought or looked at something like "an American"? Love to see ANY example of that. WHY "liberal or a republican" and not "communist and Republican" or "totalitarian and freedom lover"?
If you're going to call us racists...you might as well go "Full Lefty" and add sexist, everythingaphobic and say something aboot white privilege. I'm sure it had nothing to do with Democrips having a free pass with the media to selectively report everything left in a favorable light. LiveLeak.com - Japanese Dogs Have Tense Stand Off
Oh, no need to say anything about white privilege here, folks leave that at the portal as they enter SM don't they? cute video clip...and no blood drawn.
"White privilege"? Wheres canz ah signs up for sum? Ah fo shaw ain't never seed none and ah fo shaw don't gets nun round here!
with Just hang around some of the preppy boys, like Donaldo the Magnificent, and some may be found...some improvements in diction, and grammar may rub off also.
I am a racist, OK now that I got that out of my bloodstream, I happen to like the Japanese people. I read somewhere, and it may have been on the internet so that makes it true... That the reason we rounded up all the Japanese Americans and interned them, was because we had broken the Japanese code and didn't want to give away that fact by just arresting the Japanese spies, and yes there were not so nice Japanese spies in our society. Just the mis-quote attributed to Admiral Yamamoto that invasion of the mainland of the US would be futile, because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Indicates to me that Japan had indeed contemplated an invasion of the mainland, not just Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. Does the interment of the Japanese look bad, of course, was it justified, of course, might this also be applied towards the people from predominately Muslim countries. Of Course Rancher
There are some essential differences, between the case of Japan, and the countries that are presently proscribed in Trump's EO. The war with Japan, and the other Axis powers was a war between State actors, in a war declared in accordance with international conventions. The war was of limited duration and was concluded by the unconditional surrender of each of the opposing Axis belligerents. The so called "war against terror" is largely against non state actors, without the likelihood of there being any limit on its duration: Which is fortunate for an authoritarian administration that can capitalize on the citizenry's fears, and distract them away from their own progressively incremental enslavement, by harnessing distrust and hatred against conveniently provided classes of enemies domestic, and foreign. I think George Orwell had the right of it, when he penned his dystopian novel,1984. Emphasis mine: VC Is Donald Trump becoming a contemporary "Big Brother"? Time will tell....but it's not looking very promising for the Winston Smiths of this world.
That has been a problem with war for quite a while, is the purpose of war not to kill the opponent? Yet we have all these rules, because we are civilized... so chemical weapons are out, nuclear weapons are out, and if we didn't kill the enemy with the first bullet, we patch him up and let him wait out the rest of the war... sounds a lot like a game doesn't it. War should not be a game, it makes it too easy to play. Rancher
You have raised an interesting moral / ethical question, but answering it an any comprehensive way, would tend towards straying into off-topic territory. I'll reply in a separate thread, and link you to it. It may take a while to draft a reply; as strange as it may seem to some, I do have a life outside of SM.
