>Be me
>In debate club, senior year of Highschool
>Debate club head is a whiny liberal landwhale
>Need to prepare an oral argument by Tuesday
>"Is Trump's Muslim Ban* constitutional?
I'm thinking about arguing on the basis of an executive order being literally sanctioned in the Constitution while Judicial Review is a sort of self-given judicial power being the pivot of my argument. Thoughts, memes, shitposts?
*Yes she fervently refers to it as such
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
law.cornell.edu
realclearpolitics.com
joshblackman.com
breitbart.com
breitbart.com
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
youtube.com
dailycaller.com
redpanels.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
conservativereview.com
twitter.com
Executive orders are against the constitution. The president does not have any authority under the constitution to write laws. That being said, there are laws that exist that give the president the power to prevent people from coming into the country that he perceives to be a threat.
Look up legal blogs and copy their arguments
If there was a sufficiently good argument against judicial review, we wouldn't have it anymore, and it's somewhat distracting from the actual topic of debate. Ditto for the question of "are executive orders in general constitutional." I'd advise sticking to discussion of the executive's powers over immigration, and the rather pertinent fact that the consitution ultimately has rather few things in it, all told, and the executive order simply fails to violate any of them.
The amendment that this muslim ban is supposedly "breaking" is the first amendment, where freedom of speech, religion, and race is prominent.
Trump has not banned muslims from entering the US, he has banned travel from nations that are KNOWN to harbor dangerous people.
Executive orders are orders written by the president to enforce laws written by Congress. They don't even need to meet the criteria of constitutional or not, they just need to meet the criteria of following the laws they are designed to enforce.
If anything's going to be deemed constitutional or not, it should be the originally congressional act.
>"Is Trump's Muslim Ban* constitutional?
A Muslim ban probably wouldn't hold up in front of the SCOTUS. Banning 7 countries based on their demonstrable social upheaval (and consequential terrorism) is.
It's constitutional, everyone knows it is. Immigration is the within the realm of the president, specific when it pertains to national security. He can keep people out that he believes are a threat to national security.
The real issue here is whether or not it deals with threats and what the intent of the ban was. The 9th curcuit ruled that there was little evidence of a threat, so the intent to was to ban people based on national origin (not religion), which is very illegal.
Yep. Bangladesh has banned their OWN citizens from returning from Iraq etc. They're a Muslim country. Try and see them argue out of that one. (There's also the case that Muslim countries outright don't allow travel to Israel. Their passports LITTERALLY say they recognise all states but Israel rofl).
Point out how the Chinese were banned and not a single person complained it was unconstitutional
law.cornell.edu
(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.
Now, I don't speak legalese so there might be more to this than I understand.
Here's a write up that argues that it's legal. You should obviously check the sources for yourself but it will at least give you something to go on.
Attack the basic building blocks of the question.
>unconstitutional
Cut and dry case, it is a very clearly defined power of the President - dig up how many times Obama used them, to no great national outcry
>Trump's
As above, Trump is not the first to do this, AND of course he made the extra courtesy in going with the previous administration's identifications as dangerous countries, not his own - hopefully with the understanding that if other countries in the region want to stay off the list they better behave, help fight ISIS and tackle the refugee situation.
>Muslim Ban
The only way any religion is relevant to the immigration policies of the Trump team is that persecuted religious minorities are taken in a bit more readily. For the most part that means Christians being slaughtered by Muslims, but that's a different story.
why don't you try reading the constitution retard.
>A Muslim ban on immigration probably wouldn't hold up in front of the SCOTUS
The funny thing is it would if it's an EO from the President. Literally any group can be banned, no evidence than that required to convince the PotUS as well.
A ban on the religion however would violate the 1st Amendment.
You are a senior in high school debate and you can't do a fucking google search.
I have no idea why people want others to do their work for them.
Lmao just read out loud the law that gives the president authority to do so drop Mike and just leave the room
Trump's executive order also expressly relies on an Obama-era provision of the immigration law, Section 1187(a)(12), which governs the Visa Waiver Program. This statute empowers the executive branch to waive the documentation requirements for certain aliens. In it, Congress itself expressly discriminates based on country of origin.Under this provision, Congress provides that an alien is eligible for the waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria any time after March 1, 2011; (b) in any country whose government is designated by the State Department as repeatedly provid[ing] support for acts of international terrorism; or (c) in any country that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a country of concern.
Alright OP, here's the killshot you use when she inevitably starts bringing up feelings:
"Appealing to emotion doesn't override the constitution nor does it keep people safe. I'll remind you that this debate is about whether the ban is unconstitutional and emotionalism has no place in this conversation as it doesn't prove your point."
Cite.1182
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW APPLIES TO CITIZENS
The ban DOES NOT APPLY TO CITIZENS
there are also 2 supreme court cases being cited on the pro side
Call them racists for saying there aren't people of other religions in those countries.
>debate
>implying that it's not just gonna be you vs people that think that debate is screaming incoherent shit
1) inadmissible aliens: the president can determine whoever gets to immigrate on any basis. this is a part of the US Code.
2) the constitution applies to US citizens. the 1st amendment does not apply.
3) something like 87% of muslims are still able to come here, therefore its not a muslim ban
4) muslim or not, the area affected tends to be volatile, therefore they can be dismissed from consideration
those are just off the top of my head
the easiest argument is the president has the ability to restrict entry to the US from any country, just not discriminate against religion.
since his ban never mentions any religion, it's legal. Just because trump stated he would 'ban all muslims', has no bearing on his actual executive order.
you could also mention the 7 countries on his ban are countries that we are currently at war with; We have ground troops deployed in every one of them and we drone strike/bomb them on a frequent basis.
if they take a moral opinion against the ban you can claim that the US already accepts 3 times the number of refugees all european countries combined, perhaps european nations should take more responsibility stabilizing their regions.
>CONSTITUTIONAL LAW APPLIES TO THOSE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE US.
Cause your retarded 14th amendment's interpretation.
yes because the constitution doesn't apply to fucking foreigners in other countries
(1) josh blackman points out that the 9th circuit transgressed justice jackson's youngstown doctrine in ruling against trump:
EVERY first-year constitutional law class covers the Youngstown case, and every law student is familiar with these words:
Justice Jackson: "When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."
In ruling against Trump, the 9th Circuit completely ignored the Youngstown doctrine, as explained at greater length by Blackman.
(2) This is a good article that breaks down the poor reasoning undergirding the decision:
(3) From the same author, this is also good, but a little bit more technical as it gets into the "standing" issue:
breitbart.com
(4) Also good:
(5) And finally THIS may have the best and clearest exposition of the reasons why the decision is wrong:
-- Judicial review is an interesting subject (actually, a fascinating subject), but it's not going away any time soon. I DON'T think getting into judicial review is a winning argument on this subject, where the court's analysis is so flawed, allowing you a couple of solid, direct legal arguments to make about those flaws.
>top US debate champions
>uh-uh nigger -uh -uh whiteness -uh uh the whiteness does is boldness -uh uhh cultural representation of the white world -uh uh authentic nigga, but two niggas is speaking who wrote this shit
>youtube.com
i mean i don't think you are wrong
You're absolutely wrong. The President is given tremendous power over immigration, and profoundly wide latitude when it comes to national security issues, but his actions and the order aren't unreviewable. Many such cases where courts have ruled on national security issues, foreign policy, and during war. The idea that one section of any branch is completely removed from checks and balances doesn't have anything I know of to support it, and a whole lot of evidence against.
That's taking the narrow view of what you wrote. If you're going to try and argue that Marbury vs Madison is where it all went wrong, the only way you're going to win the debate is if your opponent dies of confusion, which is a serious risk if that's your case.
No it didn't, they used "Establishment" doctrine from prior campaign statements to say it WAS a Muslim ban.
Go fucking argue "4 points" doctrine, that using outside statements, from campaign trails is bullshit, and that the verbiage is completely legal. Make sure to cite CNN outrage that trump was following his campaign promises versus the expectation that presidents NEVER "do" what they say, (thus invalidating talk of a Muslim ban from the campaign trail)
Huh? That was one of their arguments, but the ninth district declined to consider that, except saying that it was serious allegations left to another time. One of the judges pointed out that it doesn't apply to 85% of Muslims, raising doubt to it being targeted at the particular religion, but they didn't touch on that.
They instead focused on the damage to institutions and the effect on people with green cards and visas. Since the order doesn't specify any special considerations for them, and the administration has offered up so many conflicting statements; it was set into motion without notice or a hearing; and the rights of people from those countries who are here already in the US (I.e., can they go up to Canada and come back), they didn't overturn the stay.
This
...I could have sworn that was a compelling argument and why they rejected POTUS 4 points appeal... otherwise why would campaign statements have featured in the argument.
But I did have to skim through on a fucking lunch break.
dailycaller.com
Argue that the liberal court is doing everything it can to slow Trump down.
this is a good base. point out that the 7 mentioned countries are only about 10% of the muslim world, a true muslim ban would be banning people from Indonesia, Bangledesh, Pakistan, Nigeria etc
redpanels.com
Link is of course pic, but also has the list of countries in the ban and not in it, for convenience.
