Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 06:40:21 PM
This isn't May is it, its December, we just had 14 innocent Americans slaughtered by islamofascists not in the wilds of Syria, or Iraq, but San Bernadino California! You bet you're ass I love him, he has taken the PC culture and thrashed it effortlessly, you owe him a debt of gratitude if for no other reason then that, but there is even more, he has wrenched away the dialogue from the Grubering leftists who control the beloved rino party, and forced it to confront the real issues that real American's are dealing with, or fearing!

You owe this man a great debt of gratitude if for no other reasons! 

There's an old song, "Will You Love Me in December as You Did in May?". I guess the answer is "No."

Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 04:41:04 PM
Federal law can not override constitutional law.  The first amendment does not allow this sort of religious test.

The Constitutional ban on religious test ONLY applies to Federal office.

QuoteIf what you were saying were true, it would apply to other articles and amendments.  So, for example, congress could ban guns under the commerce clause.  Clearly, this is not the case.

Immigration is a power explicitly given to Congress. I has to do with a foreigners entering the United States. Someone attempting to enter the United States, has no right as a foreign national to call upon the Constitution to gain entry as it doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil. 

QuoteIt was a straw man.  Your argument is a rambling mess.  Let me try to deconstruct it.

Because you can't - or won't - understand whats being said, or because you don't agree with what's being said doesn't make it a "rambling mess". No it isn't the leftist gibberish you're used too, but that doesn't make it wrong.

QuoteI don't believe there are any legal precedents for denying immigration based on religion.  I believe that test is specifically unconstitutional.

There are legal precedents which say that Congress has the right to deny admission on any grounds it so pleases. There were no limitations placed on this right. Attempting to use the First Amendment is also a non starter as we are discussing entry into the US, and foreign nationals enjoy no Constitutional rights when they're in a foreign country. No foreign national has a "right" to enter the US.

QuoteThis is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a ban is constitutional.

ANY entry ban passed by Congress is Constitutional.

QuoteYou seem to be confusing immigration and refugees.  They're different.

Indeed they are; but sense these refuges have already found safety in neighboring countries, and the cannot enjoy refugee status, the only classification left is immigrants. Besides as refugees the would not be settled in the US . This is simply an attempt by the Obama administration to go around Congress' prerogative to set immigration standards, as I noted the are not refugees and they are being settled. If the were refugees the would be sheltered in camps until the end of hostilities and then returned to their country of origin.

QuoteYou also seem to be confusing a religious test and a country of origin test.

Unless the plan is to appoint them to Federal office the religious test clause doesn't apply. You leftist should try reading the Constitution you're trying to destroy

QuoteTo be clear, It would be perfectly constitutional for the president to decide not to take in any more Syrians (either via refugee status or immigration).

Which part of immigration being the prerogative of Congress are you having trouble understanding? If they were truly refugees, by treaty, we could take some and provide camps for them. But they're not refugees. If you've been keeping up with the administrations story on why they aren't taking Middle Eastern Christians, you would know that Obama's bullshit excuse is that these actual refugees from Islamic terror have reached refuge in Kurdish held Syria. Meanwhile he ignores that to takes Syrian migrants from their refuge in Turkey. Try keeping up!

Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2015, 06:57:41 PM
Trump takes a position for 5 minutes and the Trumpsters go nuts telling us how great he is.  Too funny.

Yep, and defend the Hell out of it.

By the way, our Dave called me and said he's trying to get his Senator to join, though I neglected to ask his name, but he said he's a solid Conservative.
I paid for another two years.

Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2015, 06:48:27 PM
14 Americans since May?  My fault.  I didn't know Muzzies attacking us was a recent concept over the past few months.

Good one, minimize the islamofascist murder of 14 Americans as rationalization for your distaste for Trump! The largest, most deadly islamofascist attack on America since 9/11 is as you no doubt have heard, a game changer, there will be many more where that one came from, perhaps you need run to Jeb or Marko for an act of love hug, and some more open borders Grubering....

Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 07:14:46 PM
Yep, and defend the Hell out of it.

By the way, our Dave called me and said he's trying to get his Senator to join, though I neglected to ask his name, but he said he's a solid Conservative.
I paid for another two years.

Ha, sweet!  That guy is awesome...

Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 07:27:34 PM
Good one, minimize the islamofascist murder of 14 Americans as rationalization for your distaste for Trump! The largest, most deadly islamofascist attack on America since 9/11 is as you no doubt have heard, a game changer, there will be many more where that one came from, perhaps you need run to Jeb or Marko for an act of love hug, and some more open borders Grubering....

Was that before May?

Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 07:14:46 PM
Yep, and defend the Hell out of it.

By the way, our Dave called me and said he's trying to get his Senator to join, though I neglected to ask his name, but he said he's a solid Conservative.
I paid for another two years.

Trumps contributions and media savvy combined with the political inertia which gave rise to them, have directly resulted in the seizing of control away from the leftist establishment and its death grip upon the political dialogue and process, one hell of an accomplishment, almost divine intervention considering that he hasn't spent a dime of his own money in the doing thereof. Without Trump, the rino party would be shamelessly cheer leading for some Grubering D-Bag named Bush, or Kasich and how its an act of love to break into the country by the tens of millions, Cruz wouldn't be surging in Iowa and very likely would already be gone the way of Scott Walker, Trump changed everything, imperfect as he is, he is the best thing America has been served up since Reagan's 2nd term! 

Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 07:44:57 PM
Trumps contributions and media savvy combined with the political inertia which gave rise to them, have directly resulted in the seizing of control away from the leftist establishment and its death grip upon the political dialogue and process, one hell of an accomplishment, almost divine intervention considering that he hasn't spent a dime of his own money in the doing thereof. Without Trump, the rino party would be shamelessly cheer leading for some Grubering D-Bag named Bush, or Kasich and how its an act of love to break into the country by the tens of millions, Cruz wouldn't be surging in Iowa and very likely would already be gone the way of Scott Walker, Trump changed everything, imperfect as he is, he is the best thing America has been served up since Reagan's 2nd term!

Link   

Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 07:14:46 PM
Yep, and defend the Hell out of it.

By the way, our Dave called me and said he's trying to get his Senator to join, though I neglected to ask his name, but he said he's a solid Conservative.
I paid for another two years.

Sooooo I will not need to get in the unemployment line for two more years.      

QuoteThe Constitutional ban on religious test ONLY applies to Federal office.

Wow.  I really don't know what to say.  The fact that you even considered that I was talking about that blows my mind.  Did you google "religious test" in the constitution and come up with that? 

I think it's clear I wasn't talking about article 6.  In fact, I very clearly said the first amendment in the part you quoted and in numerous other responses.  When I mention "religious test" it refers to the test Trump was proposing.  I thought that was clear.

This is basic first amendment stuff.

Go look at Everson v. Board of Education.  It lays out a few tests, one of which is:
- Neither a state nor the federal government government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions nor prefer one religion over another.

Clearly, a law, which when implemented results in "No Muslims" is preferring one religion over another.

Or move forward to  Lemon v. Kurtzman - the so called "Lemon test", it'll fail the second part.
- Does the primary effect of the law or action neither advance nor inhibit religion? In other words, is it neutral?

Or move forward to  Lynch v. Donnelly, it'll clearly fail the endorsement test.

There, three precedents that all support my view that the first amendment will apply.



Other than that bit, I think I've already addressed every one of your arguments, so please keep up.

Quote
Immigration is a power explicitly given to Congress. I has to do with a foreigners entering the United States.

Please see my 05:19:20 PM response and explain where my reasoning was wrong.

Quote
Someone attempting to enter the United States, has no right as a foreign national to call upon the Constitution to gain entry as it doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil. 

Please see my 04:25:07 PM response to this and explain where my reasoning was wrong.

Quote
There are legal precedents which say that Congress has the right to deny admission on any grounds it so pleases. There were no limitations placed on this right.

Please cite one of these precedents.  I'm happy to learn something new.  Until you do, your argument is the equivalent of "nuht uh, I said so"


Again, see 05:19:20 PM response to understand the limitation.

Quote
Attempting to use the First Amendment is also a non starter as we are discussing entry into the US, and foreign nationals enjoy no Constitutional rights when they're in a foreign country. No foreign national has a "right" to enter the US.

Please see my 04:25:07 PM response to this and explain where my reasoning was wrong.

Quote
ANY entry ban passed by Congress is Constitutional.

Please see my 05:19:20 PM response and explain where my reasoning was wrong.

Quote
Which part of immigration being the prerogative of Congress are you having trouble understanding? If they were truly refugees, by treaty, we could take some and provide camps for them. But they're not refugees. If you've been keeping up with the administrations story on why they aren't taking Middle Eastern Christians, you would know that Obama's bullshit excuse is that these actual refugees from Islamic terror have reached refuge in Kurdish held Syria. Meanwhile he ignores that to takes Syrian migrants from their refuge in Turkey. Try keeping up!

All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's constitutional to restrict immigration based on religion, which is the only argument I'm making.  I don't care if we deny all Syrians or not, that would be legal.  I very much care about a presidential candidate proposing unconstitutional measures.

(all times EST, no idea if they'll be off hours for you)

Quote from: walkstall on December 08, 2015, 07:59:09 PM

Link   

Go back to your hole in the sand....

Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 08:26:04 PM
Go back to your hole in the sand....

Provide a link... you've been called on it...

Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 08:26:04 PM
Go back to your hole in the sand....

LOL  Don't press you luck!   

Quoteconsidering that he hasn't spent a dime of his own money in the doing thereof.

So no link then your just fling poo and hope it will stick. 

What Trump proposes is unconstitutional and sounds bigoted but he has a point. If the program doesn't work stop the program until the problems are fixed.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 08, 2015, 08:47:44 PM
What Trump proposes is unconstitutional and sounds bigoted but he has a point. If the program doesn't work stop the program until the problems are fixed.

Hmm...
Jimmy Carter Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions.
April 7, 1980

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233