Good explanation of why the decision to overturn the travel ban is totally wrong
7 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- I find the interpretation of the interpretation problematic, since it incorrectly paraphrases the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause. (And possibly the entire scope of the Constitution.)
Going on to assert that the problem will be that Presidents will try to pack courts... oh goodness... as if they didn't already try to do this. (See, for example, FDRs attempts at court packing for a particularly egregious example.)
IANAL, but I think you need a better argument about why the court ruling is "totally wrong".31w
- Print night. Will reply in a bit.
- I can completely go with the last remark. Ive seen this country seemingly get worst. The concept of being American is going down the tubes.31w
- Well the gist is that the code clearly gives the President WIDE latitude to determine who can come into the county. (Couldn't he have simply told the SecState to not issue any visas from these countries? Not sure why that wasn't the approach to begin with unless he wanted the public issue.)
What you have is a court saying that because the President had said on the campaign trail that the US needs to "ban muslims" from entering until we "find out what the hell is going on" then that prevents him from ever refusing entry to any class that includes muslims because now US constitutional rights extend to everyone in the world, even to people who have never been here and have no claim to US citizenship.
That is insane.
Could a detained anti-Maduro demonstrator in Caracas who has never set foot in the US sue the government of Venezuela in a US court because his right under the US Constitution to "peaceably assemble" was violated? Of course not. He has no such US Constitutional right in Caracas.
Personally, I think the executive order is over the top and obviously a political stunt. They should just vet people really well but not say anyone from six countries is bad. But my opinion doesn't matter because the US Code specifically says that the President makes that call.31w
- You're misstating the position again.
This isn't "US Constitutional rights extend to everyone in the world". This is "US Constitutional rights and obligations extend when you're talking about US law and actions by the US government". This is saying that the government was violating the Establishment Clause by the intent and quoted statements of a government official - the President.
This also has nothing to do with US Citizenship. There is lots of case law that says that US law and the Constitution applies to non-citizens under US jurisdiction. So unless you're saying that people seeking legal entry to the US aren't under US jurisdiction, then that whole line of argument needs to be thrown out.
This is like the argument about people who post videos to YouTube and say "no copyright violation is intended". Just saying that doesn't absolve them from what their real intent is.31w
- "US Constitutional rights and obligations extend when you're talking about US law and actions by the US government"
This is a good argument but the president's EO imposed a restriction on entry from countries that do not have an effective government in terms of providing the kind of data needed for thorough vetting. Actions matter, not words. Trump said some things that were offensive to some (and caused him to be elected President by others) but those political statements on the campaign trail <> what was in the EO. The EO was sound.
"This is saying that the government was violating the Establishment Clause by the intent and quoted statements of a government official - the President."
The protections under the Establish Clause that prohibit a state religion and protect the free exercise of religion do not extend to people overseas with no connection to the US.
"This also has nothing to do with US Citizenship. There is lots of case law that says that US law and the Constitution applies to non-citizens under US jurisdiction. So unless you're saying that people seeking legal entry to the US aren't under US jurisdiction, then that whole line of argument needs to be thrown out."
So anyone need only fill out a visa form to enjoy all rights under the US Constitution?31w
- I'm not sure we're going to get far in this discussion if you keep misrepresenting the First Amendment.
Yes, USC gives the President and executive branch wide latitude in deciding who to grant visas to. However, the Constitution imposes limits on that. The Establishment Clause, in particular, says that the President can't grant visas in furtherance of establishing a state religion.
While there are parts of the First Amendment that explicitly protect rights to people, the Establishment Clause is not one of them. It specifically restricts the power of the government.
So your (and this article's) deceptive argument about non-US citizens or residents somehow magically "getting" rights isn't even close to the mark.
Your point about "actions matter more than words" would be valid if their initial actions didn't make it clear what their intent was. Trying to backpeddal that now suggests that this EO was issued in a vacuum.
Your better argument for why this isn't a religious ban is to point out which countries aren't affected by it and how many people of the supposed restricted religion are actually admitted. Another good argument would be examples of how the checks currently in place aren't sufficient and why vetting needs to be improved. But so far it is far too easy to shoot holes in these arguments with only vague assertions made to justify them, and a history that suggest these assertions are newly fabricated.31w
- But Dan, we already know what's going on. The terrorists hate you because you're free. Even you said it so I assume it's true. I wouldn't worry too much though because Trump has a secret plan and all he needs is month and ISIS will be gone because he knows more about ISIS and the Middle East than all the so called generals combined. What we know so far is that it's the BEST PLAN EVER and that it includes targeted killings of suspected terrorists' wives and children.
PS Loved your show last week and how you totally destroyed the TOTALLY FAKE rumor spread by Zuckerberg and the others over at the facebook that Google Plus is dead. Can't wait till next Friday to hear your and Allen's thoughts on the upcoming Google I/O.31w
Add a comment...