bahmer

So did Obama if my memory serves me correctly.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

JF - It is not the president's right to a act on immigration that is unconstitutional (though I recall that many on the right did not particularly agree with Obama's authority.)
What is unconstitutional about Trump's EOs is that they have been religion-based.

Hence, of course, all the opinions expressed on this site that Islam is not a religion. But it is, and the ban is unconstitutional, in both its forms.

Since both the 9th circuit and the 4th circuit have declared the various bans unconstitutional, and appeals courts have upheld those decisions, it seems unlikely that SCOTUS will accept a case at this point. Usually they only step in where there are differing opinions in the lower courts. It is a the very heart of SCOTUS' role to clarify when dissent among the courts is the case.

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

You watch what happens Paul. Times have changed and these judges are living in the past.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

That may be cesspool, and of course I have no choice but to watch what happens.
I never thought Trump's ban was anything more than a political ploy to manipulate his base anyway.

No one can say we are not living in interesting times, for sure!

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

I agree Paul

Loki Loc: Georgia

Paul, Trump's ban did not specify Muslims. It included all people from the countries mentioned. These countries are Muslim majorities. He did not ban Muslims from any of the other Muslim majority countries, Muslim or not.
How can the ban be on Muslims when it excludes all people from six countries, but places no restrictions on Muslims from anywhere else? Jimmuh Cahtuh, during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, did the same thing, plus he deported several thousand Muslims of Iranian origin. I suppose it's only unconstitutional if done by a Republican.
You also neglected to mention that the Fourth and Ninth Circuit courts are dominated by Liberal Democrats, which is why the appeals were made in those venues in the first place. Both of these Appellate Courts have had well over 80% of their decisions reversed or vacated when ruled on by the Supreme Court.
An appeal made to one of the more Conservative Appellate Courts would probably have very different results, which is why the opponents of the ban made sure they appealed to a sympathetic court.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Loki-

If Trump had not been so loud about banning Muslims during his campaign I might inclined to cut some slack on this issue. But it seems his intent (and that of his base) was clear.

Of course Trump could not declare a ban on Muslims outright. He is much slyer than that. Another factor that makes me doubt his intentions is that Saudi Arabia, the source of much of the funding for terrorists, was excluded from the ban. I mean, the worst terrorist attack of all was perpetrated by Saudis.

As I said earlier, it's my belief that he had no thought of anything except stirring up a political turmoil.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Jeh Johnson, Obama's head of Homeland Security, admitted before Congress that in the matter of Syrian refugees especially, many times the "vetting" consists of simply taking their word for something. They may not be who they claim to be, and may not even be Syrian. If you wish to see what happens when large amounts of unvetted Muslims are let into the country, look no further than the various Somali communities around the country. Overwhelmingly Muslim, with an appalling crime rate, the majority on welfare because of their refusal to learn enough English to get a job or an education.
I have said before, you can take an illiterate Nigerian who can't speak English, and an illiterate Somali who can't speak English, and give each of them a job as a dishwasher in a restaurant.
In ten years, the Nigerian will own the restaurant, read, write and speak better English than you, and have a couple of academically super-performing kids.
The Somali will still be an illiterate who cannot speak English and will still be a dishwasher unless he is on welfare or in jail.
During the Iranian crisis, Carter banned all Iranians and deported most of the ones who were here.
It seems it is perfectly Constitutional as long as a Democrat does it.
As for Saudi Arabia, the government was not complicit in 9/11.
Your gal Hillary had no problem accepting more than 25 million bucks from the Saudis. Think that was a love offering, or do you think that maybe they just might have expected a little quid pro quo had the Harpy been elected?

bggamers Loc: georgia

Bs the bans were what obama and clinton used while in and for unconstitutional these people are not americans why doesnt anyone get that.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

The judges used the statements made by Trump while on the campaign trail. That is irrelevant to the EO that they were to be judging upon. His statements made at that time were not in the order so they are a mute point. Nothing unconstitutional about the EO. The judges went by their party affiliation not the laws as they should.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

The EO's were based upon the countries that were mentioned in the second EO. The same countries Obama used. I also know that Presidents in the past have accomplished the same thing with an order and an bill passed by Congress. The circuit courts have ruled by party affiliation not by law.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Paul you are wrong. Not on what the partisan courts have ruled but presidential authority. President has been set. Carter did bar Iranians from the US. Trump's EO says nothing about Muslims. He has the right to ban citizens based on their country of origin.

E

Ginger, I think you miss the point of this whole string. They accused President Trump of acting on his personal rhetoric and campaign extremism. But the law is behind President Trump on this one. Presidents have in the past used these very powers granted to them by Congress. It is not only their right, but their obligation to stop certain elements the President deems dangerous in their capacity as President. It is not in any intended law for notorious Liberal Courts or Judges to second guess the President on every move he makes, especially in the matter of foreign policy and the need to protect America. Instead, these judges acted on their own personal prejudices as evident by their recorded votes, all Democratic appointed judges voted to stop the President. The few Republican Judges voted to uphold the Constitution. You might also note that this court is the most over turned court in America by the Supreme Court.

Using your own words, "They did go over the laws and the constitution. That is the very reason they stopped the ban. Un constitutional." Will you stand behind the Supreme Court when they, "go over the laws and the constitution." and over turn these Liberal Judges yet again. Most of us on here have no doubt that the Supreme Court will rule that Trump's ban was Constitutional.

cheers

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

There is apparently some nuance in the difference between Trump's EO and Obama's.
While many may still say they are the same, this is worth reading to get a clearer picture of the differences.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Thanks for spurring me to research, JF.
Although I was an adult at the time, I was unfamiliar with (or perhaps just plain forgot) Carter's EO.
Similar to Obama's ban, there are some subtle differences between Carter's and Trump's EOs.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/dec/17/why-trumps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/


Although Trump's EO does not specifically exclude based on religion, it takes great pains to say that it does not, calling out Islam specifically, which to me is a bit of a red flag. He seems to already suspect in advance that the courts will see it the same way this Politifact article does, that the EO is a thinly veiled ban on a particular faith.

While Trump's order itself is lengthy, it is worth reading. It is general in its reasoning, with no callout to a specific event perpetrated by anyone in the countries banned.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states