First 100 Days of Trump

Quote: terapined

Trump is losing in the courts again regarding the new travel ban
Its discrimination based on religion
Unconstitutional.
The discrimination based on religion is still on the campaign web site
talk about shooting yourself in the foot
A judge referred to this web page to help decide his ruling

I didn't watch, but apparently Donald said during his campaign rally last night that the intent of the two orders was the same and he preferred the first one.

He knows judges can watch TV too, doesn't he? He damaged his case last night, for sure.

Quote: terapined

Trump is losing in the courts again regarding the new travel ban
Its discrimination based on religion
Unconstitutional.
The discrimination based on religion is still on the campaign web site
talk about shooting yourself in the foot
A judge referred to this web page to help decide his ruling

Judge Watson wrote
“there is nothing ‘veiled’ about a press release titled ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,’”

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

There is no constitutional right for a noncitizen to enter the USA. Just another liberal judge making rules based on pc not law.

Remember when Republicans pretended to support the Constitution?

Quote: ams288

He knows judges can watch TV too, doesn't he? He damaged his case last night, for sure.

That's two rulings against the second travel ban. So the score now is what? 6 to 1 or something?

Seriously, what did the Golden Boy expect? Subservience?

Quote: AZDuffman

There is no constitutional right for a noncitizen to enter the USA.

I agree with this statement, but, but there was a law passed within two years of the date the U.S. Constitution was ratified - Jun 21, 1788.

Congress passed the first "uniform Rule of Naturalization" under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed "any alien, being a free white person" and "of good character" who had resided in the United States for two years to become a "citizen of the United States" by taking an oath in court "to support the constitution of the United States."

In Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac (1817), the Supreme Court affirmed that "the power of naturalization is exclusively in congress," notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943. So the act was never actually declared illegal, but it was only repealed.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just another liberal judge making rules based on pc not law.

While there is no constitutional right, I don't know if the judge based his decision on constitutional law.

Quote: Pacomartin

I agree with this statement, but, but there was a law passed within two years of the date the U.S. Constitution was ratified - Jun 21, 1788.

Congress passed the first "uniform Rule of Naturalization" under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed "any alien, being a free white person" and "of good character" who had resided in the United States for two years to become a "citizen of the United States" by taking an oath in court "to support the constitution of the United States."

In Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac (1817), the Supreme Court affirmed that "the power of naturalization is exclusively in congress," notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943. So the act was never actually declared illegal, but it was only repealed.





While there is no constitutional right, I don't know if the judge based his decision on constitutional law.

Travel and entry are not naturalization.

Quote: Nareed

Seriously, what did the Golden Boy expect? Subservience?

Yes. That's exactly what he expected.

He's a moron who knows nothing about the Constitution.

Quote: ams288

Yes. That's exactly what he expected.

He's a moron who knows nothing about the Constitution.

Yes, there was at least some level of expectation that an activist judge in one of the many courts run by that type of critter would make a ruling that is not supported by the Constitution or applicable laws.

Trump Budget Proposes Killing All Funding for PBS, NPR and National Endowment for the Arts

Bout dang time..

Quote: ams288

Yes. That's exactly what he expected.

Too bad he lives in a democratic republic where the people delegate their sovereign powers among three equal branches of government.

Quote:

He's a moron who knows nothing about the Constitution.

It's the new GOP MO.