Trump btfo by the constitution !

Trump btfo by the constitution !

>Court that's right 20% of the time sides against Trump

Please OP explain what about this: 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.

>a shortsighted piece of legislature signed by a complete novice of a statesman is a matter of constitutional importance

What is "btfo"

>Unconstitutional

The refugee has no specific constitutional rights. The President has the power to block immigration from certain areas, and this is certainly not a ban on all Muslims, as Muslims from Malaysia and Saudi Arabia are free to enter the United States

>Un-American

"No True Scotsman" fallacy

>Islamaphobic

Again, does not affect all Muslims

>Less safe

So you're saying restricting access from certain parts of the world will radicalize Muslims into terrorists?

...

>People not living in america have american rights

So fucking glad i voted for Trump right now

unironically made me think

What. The. Fuck.

His ban wouldn't have even stopped the 9/11 hijackers, all of whom were Saudi citizens. What a crock of shit, this asshole is as fake as his hair piece.

>His ban wouldn't have even stopped the 9/11 hijackers, all of whom were Saudi citizens.
The ban wouldn't have stopped the XYZ affair either. Do you propose we ban French migrants as well?

Because oil, user. Oil has cucked our country.

Personally I wish nothing but suffering for the Saudi regime.

Unironically another kike scheme to kill off more white goys

these

why do people think we owe them a position in society? its a priviliage not a right

How exactly would the order have made Murica less safe? i mean, if there were no terrorists/criminals coming from those countries, the only thing it would have done would be.. well... not having any impact on the safety of your country. How the fuck does that translate into unsafety?

>piece of legislature

it implies that the neglect "will radicalize them into" accepting radical islamic beliefs because the "meanie americans wouldnt let them in"

The image here explains the though process very well

SO THE SAME ORDER THAT OBAMA, AND EVEN CLINTON USED, TRUMPS IS NOW THE BAD GUY

FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING BRAINWASHED RETARD

>do thing or we violence
isn't that extortion?

Don't you love it when people who've never read the constitution lecture others on it?

exactly, whether or not the head of state signs it has very little to do with the development of laws in normal times. these are normal times. the war in iraq has faded back into complete silence and there are no prospects of anything worse than a foot of snow in the northeast.

well. actually have no idea what to say to about those people. You would assume humans that become terrorists just because someone didn't let them on "their property" are generally not something you would want to import into a nation x)

Also, that thought process is quite depressing >_>

There goes the Hitler narrative
Double win when Supreme court upholds his order

Liberals spent the last 8 years telling us that the constitution isnt supposed to be taken literally and that its an out of date white supremacist document.

>muh 9/11 hijackers

You do know that there have been more terrorist attacks since then from different areas of the Middle East right? Even our allies have been hit.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are helping us set up refugee camps in the region. That does much more to stabilize the region than banning their citizens would.

they only agree with it when its convenient to agree with it

>whether or not the head of state signs it has very little to do with the development of laws in normal times.
Nigga......

cringey harry potter fangirl humor

>"if I put bitch after everything that mean I REALLY got him"

now see, OP, Im not sure you're even on the right track.

The US Constitution jurisdiction STOPS 100% at our borders. Its a US law that only applies to US citizens ON US soil. While SCOTUS has found that some of it applies to non-citizens on US soil, it can't reach beyond our borders to other countries or THEIR citizens.

The Constitution is not a world law and the US isn't the world government. French laws and rights apply to France and French citizens. Syrian laws and rights apply to Syria and Syrian citizens. The people the EO applies to are citizens of OTHER countries INSIDE their countries.

So its almost a done deal that this decision will be overturned by the real federal judges, (SCOTUS) on the basis of jurisdiction alone. It might not be what we want, but the black and white of law matters, its not subjective.

Then there's the law that SAYS the president has authority to allow or disallow immigrants at his (or her) sole discretion. That's because like the Constitution, none of our government's reach extends beyond our borders. SCOTUS has no power outside of the US. The president does SOME as a head of state, but only by treaties and agreements with other country governments.

Its a shock to anyone in law to find that this ruling ignored jurisdiction entirely. Jurisdiction is the basis of all law, the starting to point deciding WHO the law applies to. Never before to my knowledge, has the Constitution reached outside US borders through a force majeure attempt of a federal CIRCUIT judge extending the reach of US laws, into areas outside of the US.

YOU do know there is not a single case on record, at all, of any immigrant from any of the 7 banned countries ever having committed any federal crime or act of terror in any form, and that Trump's representative lawyer confirmed this fact when directly asked by the federal judge during the trial?

...

Where was the Ohio State stabber from?

That's also an absurd point to argue. It's not the court's purview to decide if a government act is effective, it's only supposed to decide if Trump has the power to act in the way he did.

doesnt matter, if you go by the law that says the President has the right to decide where to accept immigrants from. Here's the law.
Because if a country sanctions a country, like sanctioning North Korea, then travel is often also part of the sanction.

I know leftists do not like laws, and conservatives do. So that's why the big divide on this one. The LAW says the president has this power, and he doesn't need data except 'he thinks its detrimental'. Like the law says. You can't invent parts of the law that aren't there.

All these people saying that the case is about the President's power to determine where to accept immigrants from are not quite correct.

The case is more closely tied to the First Amendment thanks to the facts and records that Trump, his administration, and his supporters and backers in Congress and the White House all pushed for a "Muslim Ban", "total ban on all Muslims" etc.
Essentially, the case is about whether or not Trump is singling out the religion of Islam with his ban.

You haven't been around long enough if you still think that he wears a wig. It's his fucking own fucked up hair. Decades. For decades regular people have known this.

yo mammas snatch