KillingtonZone.com

Deepthroat 2017

: IMG_9154.JPG (39.46 KiB) Viewed 897 times

Coydog wrote: What Trumpeteers seem to have trouble understanding is that as much as they would like, Gump is not the emperor. He may have wide latitude as POTUS, but he is never above the Constitution. Never. Our Constitution defines and limits the rights of government, it does not confer rights to the people because we already have those rights. Of course, from time to time through the legislative process we agree to limit or modify some of our rights ideally for the benefit of all.

This particular EO is being questioned under the Establishment Clause because we the people are questioning if the government is breaching its constitutional limits. This is healthy and should be embraced by the right and the left. Maybe the EO is really just a temporary travel restriction to improve our vetting process, but maybe it’s crafted to lead to an effective government disfavoring of a particular religion. Though it seems Trumpteers can't see it, enough rational questions have arisen and Gump’s own words more than justify closer legal scrutiny. It will be an interesting test.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Deepthroat 2017 - "Follow the dumbass tweets"

This is the problem I have with the current immigration EO squabble on its way to SCOTUS.

What Trump says should have no bearing on the validity of the order. The language of law speaks for itself. Trump could talk about burning a certain religion, ethnic group or nationality at the stake, but the wording of the order is what is being discussed, not the character of the person who wrote the order.

If you allow a character test of the author of any lawful order, instead of examining the order itself, you have departed from a nation of laws.

Mister Moose wrote:
This is the problem I have with the current immigration EO squabble on its way to SCOTUS.

What Trump says should have no bearing on the validity of the order. The language of law speaks for itself. Trump could talk about burning a certain religion, ethnic group or nationality at the stake, but the wording of the order is what is being discussed, not the character of the person who wrote the order.

If you allow a character test of the author of any lawful order, instead of examining the order itself, you have departed from a nation of laws.

Since it's a legal preceding wouldn't the 'intent' of the order have a role in all this?

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
This is the problem I have with the current immigration EO squabble on its way to SCOTUS.

What Trump says should have no bearing on the validity of the order. The language of law speaks for itself. Trump could talk about burning a certain religion, ethnic group or nationality at the stake, but the wording of the order is what is being discussed, not the character of the person who wrote the order.

If you allow a character test of the author of any lawful order, instead of examining the order itself, you have departed from a nation of laws.
Since it's a legal preceding wouldn't the 'intent' of the order have a role in all this?

What was Thomas Jefferson's (a slave owner, and a heterosexual male land owner afforded the privilege of voting) intent when he wrote "All men are equal"?

You need to distinguish between the intent of the order, determined solely from the language of the order itself, and the (possible) intent of the author.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
This is the problem I have with the current immigration EO squabble on its way to SCOTUS.

What Trump says should have no bearing on the validity of the order. The language of law speaks for itself. Trump could talk about burning a certain religion, ethnic group or nationality at the stake, but the wording of the order is what is being discussed, not the character of the person who wrote the order.

If you allow a character test of the author of any lawful order, instead of examining the order itself, you have departed from a nation of laws.
Since it's a legal preceding wouldn't the 'intent' of the order have a role in all this?

so you don't really care about the specific language of a law or contract but place your trust in someones opinion as to what the law means regardless of the specific language? gee what could possibly go wrong w that???

Mister Moose wrote: If you allow a character test of the author of any lawful order, instead of examining the order itself, you have departed from a nation of laws.

Of course, the entire question is whether the order is lawful, i.e. constitutional. We no longer allow poll taxes, literacy tests at the voting booth and certain types of gerrymandering because of the obviously discriminatory intent, direct or constructive. As it should, SCOTUS will examine the order in full context.

It would be a real treat if Gorsuch sides against Gump, but the whole issue will probably boil down to Kennedy.

Coydog wrote: As it should, SCOTUS will examine the order in full context.

What is "full context"?

The language is that certain countries will be excluded. There is no prohibition or US law on discrimination on countries. My point was you cannot go outside the language of the order based on some "full context" outside-the-order fishing expedition.

Your point goes to how the order is enacted and enforced. That's where the legal action should be, should there ever be a discrimination complaint in that regard.

Stopping you for speeding is legal enforcement of the law.
Stopping you for speeding because you have a MASS plate is discriminatory, and if all the tickets written Memorial Day weekend in VT are MASS plates, and you could show you were singled out from other drivers going faster, you probably would win in court. IE you were cited for 5 MPH over, and you had testimony that police did not normally enforce below 12 MPH over, and that your selective enforcement was discriminatory.

Before you argue MASS plates are not a protected class, substitute the class of your choice.

Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote: As it should, SCOTUS will examine the order in full context.
What is "full context'?

The language is that certain countries will be excluded. There is no prohibition or US law on discrimination on countries. My point was you cannot go outside the language of the order based on some "full context" outside-the-order fishing expedition.

Sure you can and in fact this is quite routine, particularly at the SCOTUS level, though maybe not so much in traffic court. The EO will be found to be constitutional or not based on something more than the simple language of the order itself.

Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote: As it should, SCOTUS will examine the order in full context.

Your point goes to how the order is enacted and enforced. That's where the legal action should be, should there ever be a discrimination complaint in that regard.

The language of Jim Crow segregation laws was not necessarily discriminatory yet the obvious effect was. Should the court have ruled that "separate but equal" was ok except for how the laws were applied?

Bubba wrote:The language of Jim Crow segregation laws was not necessarily discriminatory yet the obvious effect was. Should the court have ruled that "separate but equal" was ok except for how the laws were applied?

In the case of school choice, yes. Any student can choose to go to any school (within the district). Separate but equal.

In the case of superficial discrimination (which is what most protected class legislation is based on) no. In that case certain folks can't choose to go to any school. Jim Crow dictated a lack of choice based on a superficial characteristic.

And school choice does not extend outside our borders. Any Canadian, Mexican or Bahamian cannot expect to choose a publicly funded K-12 school in the US and commute.

Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote: As it should, SCOTUS will examine the order in full context.
What is "full context'?

The language is that certain countries will be excluded. There is no prohibition or US law on discrimination on countries. My point was you cannot go outside the language of the order based on some "full context" outside-the-order fishing expedition.

Sure you can and in fact this is quite routine, particularly at the SCOTUS level, though maybe not so much in traffic court. The EO will be found to be constitutional or not based on something more than the simple language of the order itself.

can you refresh our memories w the part of the constitution that applies to foreign nationals on foreign soil?

the HUGEabove clearly delineates the difference between conservative and liberal at the constitutional/supreme court level...

outside-the-order fishing expedition.

and that is why I could never agree w the "liberal" constitutional POV...it seeks to take that which is written and interpret it in favor of the "decider's" desired outcome regardless of what was actually written...seems to simply be an "end around" of the law when it doesn't suit them...i.e. legislating from the bench...

Conservative constitutional POV:

Coydog wrote:Conservative constitutional POV

*except when debating the 2nd Amendment.

freeski wrote:Update: Appears to be just what happens in big cities. No need to over react. This might just be a traffic accident. Let's wait for all of the facts.

So where's Trump tweeting condemnation of another terrorist attack in London? Did someone finally take his toys away?

KillingtonZone.com

More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence

Re: More Muslim Violence