We Need To Talk About Donald

[Seth]

Donnie's words come back to bite him on the arse re: his Muslim ban.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-eco ... d5f3e08d7d

We all know this is a Muslim ban.

Even if it is, so what? The President has statutory power to ban immigration by anyone, any time, for any reason or no reason at all. That authority was granted to him by Congress, which has PLENARY power over immigration that the SCOTUS has said is part of the nation's "sovereign authority" that pre-exists even the Constitution.

It was promised on the campaign trail and promoted as such before the election, and it's apparent national security justification is seriously undermined by the fact that the number of domestic terrorist attack by immigrants or visitors from the nominated states is exactly zero. This leaves that justification hanging on the assumption that Muslims are inherently terroristic, which further pushes the order into the territory of a religious ban - thus contravening the establishment clause of the constitution.

Thing is, President Trump doesn't have to state a reason, he can do it because he thinks he should. That's his power as the elected CEO of the United States and NO STATE has any authority whatsoever to challenge him or his reasons for doing what he, as a part of his political executive authority, has the statutory power to do.

This is a separation of powers issue. Neither the states nor the courts have authority to inquire into the motives of the President's invocation of the law involved because that is a POLITICAL MATTER, not a judicial one. There are things that are beyond the review of the courts, including the Supreme Court, because they are political matters that are determined by elections and legislative actions, not judicial fiat.

The establishment clause of the Constitution does not even factor into this because immigrants seeking entry to the US have no rights under the Constitution or the establishment clause. That's just how it is, so the argument is fallacious to begin with and the obstruction by liberal 9th Circuit judges is just political grandstanding that will lose in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court because this issue has already been adjudicated by the SCOTUS which said that states have NO standing to sue on behalf of their citizens in matters of federal immigration law.

Some are arguing that the President's obligation to the constitution only applies to domestic policy that effects citizens - not visitors or immigrants who haven't gained citizenship. This is a silly argument.

No, it's not. It's a fundamental principle of sovereign states set forth in precise terms in Article 1 Section 8 where Congress, and Congress alone is given the authority to determine immigration policy. And Congress, in doing so decades ago, gave to the President unreviewable power to ban immigration by anyone as he sees fit.

Only once someone has gained lawful permission to enter the United States do ANY civil rights attach under the Constitution. That does not include either refugees in other nations or foreigners who wish to immigrate.

[Brian Peacock]

Donnie's words come back to bite him on the arse re: his Muslim ban.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-eco ... d5f3e08d7d

We all know this is a Muslim ban.

Even if it is, so what? The President has statutory power to ban immigration by anyone, any time, for any reason or no reason at all. That authority was granted to him by Congress, which has PLENARY power over immigration that the SCOTUS has said is part of the nation's "sovereign authority" that pre-exists even the Constitution.

It was promised on the campaign trail and promoted as such before the election, and it's apparent national security justification is seriously undermined by the fact that the number of domestic terrorist attack by immigrants or visitors from the nominated states is exactly zero. This leaves that justification hanging on the assumption that Muslims are inherently terroristic, which further pushes the order into the territory of a religious ban - thus contravening the establishment clause of the constitution.

Thing is, President Trump doesn't have to state a reason, he can do it because he thinks he should. That's his power as the elected CEO of the United States and NO STATE has any authority whatsoever to challenge him or his reasons for doing what he, as a part of his political executive authority, has the statutory power to do.

This is a separation of powers issue. Neither the states nor the courts have authority to inquire into the motives of the President's invocation of the law involved because that is a POLITICAL MATTER, not a judicial one. There are things that are beyond the review of the courts, including the Supreme Court, because they are political matters that are determined by elections and legislative actions, not judicial fiat.

The establishment clause of the Constitution does not even factor into this because immigrants seeking entry to the US have no rights under the Constitution or the establishment clause. That's just how it is, so the argument is fallacious to begin with and the obstruction by liberal 9th Circuit judges is just political grandstanding that will lose in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court because this issue has already been adjudicated by the SCOTUS which said that states have NO standing to sue on behalf of their citizens in matters of federal immigration law.

Some are arguing that the President's obligation to the constitution only applies to domestic policy that effects citizens - not visitors or immigrants who haven't gained citizenship. This is a silly argument.

No, it's not. It's a fundamental principle of sovereign states set forth in precise terms in Article 1 Section 8 where Congress, and Congress alone is given the authority to determine immigration policy. And Congress, in doing so decades ago, gave to the President unreviewable power to ban immigration by anyone as he sees fit.

Only once someone has gained lawful permission to enter the United States do ANY civil rights attach under the Constitution. That does not include either refugees in other nations or foreigners who wish to immigrate.

The constitution defines the operating parameters of government, not just the rights of citizens.

I find it curious that you're arguing for the ban on the basis that the office of the president represents some kind of absolute monarchical authority who's obligations to the constitution rest on their whim alone.

[Seth]

Donnie's words come back to bite him on the arse re: his Muslim ban.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-eco ... d5f3e08d7d

We all know this is a Muslim ban.

Even if it is, so what? The President has statutory power to ban immigration by anyone, any time, for any reason or no reason at all. That authority was granted to him by Congress, which has PLENARY power over immigration that the SCOTUS has said is part of the nation's "sovereign authority" that pre-exists even the Constitution.

It was promised on the campaign trail and promoted as such before the election, and it's apparent national security justification is seriously undermined by the fact that the number of domestic terrorist attack by immigrants or visitors from the nominated states is exactly zero. This leaves that justification hanging on the assumption that Muslims are inherently terroristic, which further pushes the order into the territory of a religious ban - thus contravening the establishment clause of the constitution.

Thing is, President Trump doesn't have to state a reason, he can do it because he thinks he should. That's his power as the elected CEO of the United States and NO STATE has any authority whatsoever to challenge him or his reasons for doing what he, as a part of his political executive authority, has the statutory power to do.

This is a separation of powers issue. Neither the states nor the courts have authority to inquire into the motives of the President's invocation of the law involved because that is a POLITICAL MATTER, not a judicial one. There are things that are beyond the review of the courts, including the Supreme Court, because they are political matters that are determined by elections and legislative actions, not judicial fiat.

The establishment clause of the Constitution does not even factor into this because immigrants seeking entry to the US have no rights under the Constitution or the establishment clause. That's just how it is, so the argument is fallacious to begin with and the obstruction by liberal 9th Circuit judges is just political grandstanding that will lose in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court because this issue has already been adjudicated by the SCOTUS which said that states have NO standing to sue on behalf of their citizens in matters of federal immigration law.

Some are arguing that the President's obligation to the constitution only applies to domestic policy that effects citizens - not visitors or immigrants who haven't gained citizenship. This is a silly argument.

No, it's not. It's a fundamental principle of sovereign states set forth in precise terms in Article 1 Section 8 where Congress, and Congress alone is given the authority to determine immigration policy. And Congress, in doing so decades ago, gave to the President unreviewable power to ban immigration by anyone as he sees fit.

Only once someone has gained lawful permission to enter the United States do ANY civil rights attach under the Constitution. That does not include either refugees in other nations or foreigners who wish to immigrate.

The constitution defines the operating parameters of government, not just the rights of citizens.

Exactly. And the Constitution vests ALL powers with respect to immigration in Congress, not in any state. Hawaii's argument that it gets to determine immigration policy because it wants tourists is completely without legal standing.

I find it curious that you're arguing for the ban on the basis that the office of the president represents some kind of absolute monarchical authority who's obligations to the constitution rest on their whim alone.

In the case of immigration Congress, which has PLENARY power over immigration has, in it's wisdom and pursuant to it's authority over immigration, granted certain powers to the President (any President, not just Trump) to ban immigration by any class or group of persons based on his judgement that it is necessary or desirable to do so.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

"Detrimental to the interests of the United States" is a political question, not a legal one, and therefore the courts cannot review or question the President's determination that citizens of six countries in the Middle East who cannot yet be adequately vetted to ensure they are not terrorists, who are clearly "detrimental to the interests of the United States" can be temporarily barred.

This is a constitutional issue alone, and individual states have no standing to sue the federal government on behalf of their citizens (or their citizen's economic interests) over matters of federal immigration to demand that immigrants be allowed in over the President's (or Congress') objection. So, the courts cannot entertain such a case because the states have no standing to sue, which the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Mellon: “it is no part of [a State’s] duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.”

Since the states involved had no standing to sue, the courts had no authority to rule.

[Brian Peacock]

Donnie's words come back to bite him on the arse re: his Muslim ban.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-eco ... d5f3e08d7d

We all know this is a Muslim ban.

Even if it is, so what? The President has statutory power to ban immigration by anyone, any time, for any reason or no reason at all. That authority was granted to him by Congress, which has PLENARY power over immigration that the SCOTUS has said is part of the nation's "sovereign authority" that pre-exists even the Constitution.

It was promised on the campaign trail and promoted as such before the election, and it's apparent national security justification is seriously undermined by the fact that the number of domestic terrorist attack by immigrants or visitors from the nominated states is exactly zero. This leaves that justification hanging on the assumption that Muslims are inherently terroristic, which further pushes the order into the territory of a religious ban - thus contravening the establishment clause of the constitution.

Thing is, President Trump doesn't have to state a reason, he can do it because he thinks he should. That's his power as the elected CEO of the United States and NO STATE has any authority whatsoever to challenge him or his reasons for doing what he, as a part of his political executive authority, has the statutory power to do.

This is a separation of powers issue. Neither the states nor the courts have authority to inquire into the motives of the President's invocation of the law involved because that is a POLITICAL MATTER, not a judicial one. There are things that are beyond the review of the courts, including the Supreme Court, because they are political matters that are determined by elections and legislative actions, not judicial fiat.

The establishment clause of the Constitution does not even factor into this because immigrants seeking entry to the US have no rights under the Constitution or the establishment clause. That's just how it is, so the argument is fallacious to begin with and the obstruction by liberal 9th Circuit judges is just political grandstanding that will lose in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court because this issue has already been adjudicated by the SCOTUS which said that states have NO standing to sue on behalf of their citizens in matters of federal immigration law.

Some are arguing that the President's obligation to the constitution only applies to domestic policy that effects citizens - not visitors or immigrants who haven't gained citizenship. This is a silly argument.

No, it's not. It's a fundamental principle of sovereign states set forth in precise terms in Article 1 Section 8 where Congress, and Congress alone is given the authority to determine immigration policy. And Congress, in doing so decades ago, gave to the President unreviewable power to ban immigration by anyone as he sees fit.

Only once someone has gained lawful permission to enter the United States do ANY civil rights attach under the Constitution. That does not include either refugees in other nations or foreigners who wish to immigrate.

The constitution defines the operating parameters of government, not just the rights of citizens.

Exactly. And the Constitution vests ALL powers with respect to immigration in Congress, not in any state. Hawaii's argument that it gets to determine immigration policy because it wants tourists is completely without legal standing.

I find it curious that you're arguing for the ban on the basis that the office of the president represents some kind of absolute monarchical authority who's obligations to the constitution rest on their whim alone.

In the case of immigration Congress, which has PLENARY power over immigration has, in it's wisdom and pursuant to it's authority over immigration, granted certain powers to the President (any President, not just Trump) to ban immigration by any class or group of persons based on his judgement that it is necessary or desirable to do so.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

"Detrimental to the interests of the United States" is a political question, not a legal one, and therefore the courts cannot review or question the President's determination that citizens of six countries in the Middle East who cannot yet be adequately vetted to ensure they are not terrorists, who are clearly "detrimental to the interests of the United States" can be temporarily barred.

This is a constitutional issue alone, and individual states have no standing to sue the federal government on behalf of their citizens (or their citizen's economic interests) over matters of federal immigration to demand that immigrants be allowed in over the President's (or Congress') objection. So, the courts cannot entertain such a case because the states have no standing to sue, which the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Mellon: “it is no part of [a State’s] duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.”

Since the states involved had no standing to sue, the courts had no authority to rule.

That case has yet to be made in court.

[Animavore]

It just gets worse.

Mike Flynn was paid by Russia's top cybersecurity firm while he still had top-secret-level security clearance.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/mike-flyn ... ?r=US&IR=T

[JimC]

Room for a film here...

How about "The Moscow Candidate"?

[pErvinalia]

What's so fucking hilarious (not) about all this, is that we've all had this same fucking argument with you before (before your dishonest bait-switch scam from CES to 42). You really are fucking clueless, and your utter shamelessness at refusing to admit that you are constantly wrong is embarrassment off the scale.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

LOL - this is your example?

God you are a piece of work. Audley, Gerald, Sandinista and myself all criticised Obama (and that was from only reading the first three pages). You claimed we all fawned over Obama. You are wrong. Seriously, do you have a brain injury that prevents you from ever admitting you were wrong?!

It's a thread mostly involving discussion among CES,

Dude, YOU are CES. Are you still going to pretend that you aren't? How fucking dishonest are you?!?

[pErvinalia]

Donnie's words come back to bite him on the arse re: his Muslim ban.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-eco ... d5f3e08d7d

Suck it, dirtbag!

[pErvinalia]

I remember that Coito fellow used to be a centralist just left of centre. The image is gone but I remembered this one specifically because he was on the exact same part of the compass as me. He didn't identify as a right-winger.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 05#p452842

Don't know why I'm mentioning this. I miss that fella, I guess.

Christ, Ani. 42 is CES.

[JimC]

What 42 objects to is that the left was not criticising Obama as strongly as it is currently criticising Trump.

Which is, of course, absurd.

[Brian Peacock]

What I want to know is why aren't reich-wingers criticising Trump as strongly as they criticised Bush?

[pErvinalia]

He's a fucking moron.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 32631.html

He really is a moron, isn't he? I can't believe that anyone who purports to have a functioning brain would continue to support this guy.

[pErvinalia]

I'm really hoping NASA strike. They can't just abandon expensive and important research like that. Trump, Bannon, and Tillerson have a lot to answer for. If they're not all behind bars in a few years I'm quitting life.

Why wait?

[pErvinalia]

Donnie's words come back to bite him on the arse re: his Muslim ban.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-eco ... d5f3e08d7d

We all know this is a Muslim ban.

Even if it is, so what?

The courts say that is illegal. Suck it up, princess.

[pErvinalia]

Donnie's words come back to bite him on the arse re: his Muslim ban.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-eco ... d5f3e08d7d

We all know this is a Muslim ban.

Even if it is, so what? The President has statutory power to ban immigration by anyone, any time, for any reason or no reason at all. That authority was granted to him by Congress, which has PLENARY power over immigration that the SCOTUS has said is part of the nation's "sovereign authority" that pre-exists even the Constitution.

It was promised on the campaign trail and promoted as such before the election, and it's apparent national security justification is seriously undermined by the fact that the number of domestic terrorist attack by immigrants or visitors from the nominated states is exactly zero. This leaves that justification hanging on the assumption that Muslims are inherently terroristic, which further pushes the order into the territory of a religious ban - thus contravening the establishment clause of the constitution.

Thing is, President Trump doesn't have to state a reason, he can do it because he thinks he should. That's his power as the elected CEO of the United States and NO STATE has any authority whatsoever to challenge him or his reasons for doing what he, as a part of his political executive authority, has the statutory power to do.

This is a separation of powers issue. Neither the states nor the courts have authority to inquire into the motives of the President's invocation of the law involved because that is a POLITICAL MATTER, not a judicial one. There are things that are beyond the review of the courts, including the Supreme Court, because they are political matters that are determined by elections and legislative actions, not judicial fiat.

The establishment clause of the Constitution does not even factor into this because immigrants seeking entry to the US have no rights under the Constitution or the establishment clause. That's just how it is, so the argument is fallacious to begin with and the obstruction by liberal 9th Circuit judges is just political grandstanding that will lose in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court because this issue has already been adjudicated by the SCOTUS which said that states have NO standing to sue on behalf of their citizens in matters of federal immigration law.

Some are arguing that the President's obligation to the constitution only applies to domestic policy that effects citizens - not visitors or immigrants who haven't gained citizenship. This is a silly argument.

No, it's not. It's a fundamental principle of sovereign states set forth in precise terms in Article 1 Section 8 where Congress, and Congress alone is given the authority to determine immigration policy. And Congress, in doing so decades ago, gave to the President unreviewable power to ban immigration by anyone as he sees fit.

Only once someone has gained lawful permission to enter the United States do ANY civil rights attach under the Constitution. That does not include either refugees in other nations or foreigners who wish to immigrate.

The constitution defines the operating parameters of government, not just the rights of citizens.

I find it curious that you're arguing for the ban on the basis that the office of the president represents some kind of absolute monarchical authority who's obligations to the constitution rest on their whim alone.

I don't find it curious in the slightest. Seth is a conservative after all, and therefore a sycophant for authority.