Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision at the Political Forums; In a 5-4 decision the US Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban based upon Executive Order No. 13780. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-965_h315.pdf ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-28-2018, 09:21 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,369
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

In a 5-4 decision the US Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban based upon Executive Order No. 13780.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-965_h315.pdf

The President's executive order imposed restrictions on admittance to the United States based upon the national origin of the applicant that the executive order alleged that individuals from these countries represented a terrorist or other national security thread to the United States. The statutory authority for the restriction and/or suspension of travel to the United States is addressed by Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › 1182 that states:

Quote:
(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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

The Supreme Court focused on this specific authorization in upholding the Executive Order in the following statement in the majority opinion.

Quote:
By its terms, 1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187. The Proclamation falls well within this comprehensive delegation. The sole prerequisite set forth in 1182(f) is that the President “find[ ]” that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here.
The majority acknowledged the expressed animus and hostility to Muslims reflected by Donald Trump's statements attacking Muslims and calling for banning all Muslim entry during his presidential campaign. It rightfully concluded that the President's personal opinions of animus and hostility against Muslims could not be allowed to interfere with his responsibilities to protect the nation from a national security threat. The law itself prevents a president from action based solely upon personal opinion where, as the majority opinion points out, the President must "find" that an actual threat exists. In law to "find" or a "finding" is a fact based upon evidence.

In all of the court hearings (federal, appeals, and Supreme Court) on Trump's travel ban the federal government has never provided the evidence that a threat exists based upon national origin.

The dissenting opinion focused on this point by referring to the Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. United States (1944) and the majority dismissed this comparison with the following statement.

Quote:
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
Korematsu was an American citizen of US decent that was ordered to a Japanese internment camp during WW II. He refused to go and was arrested and charged with violating the order to report. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction based upon a claim made by the US President that the Japanese people represented a national security threat to the United States that justified their internment in camps during WW II.

In 1983 based. upon documents that had been suppressed by the government in 1942, Korematsu filed an appeal of his original conviction because the documents clearly established that there was no evidence that the Japanese represented a national security threat warranting their internment. In short FDR simply lied about the existence of a national security threat to the Supreme Court. Korematsu's conviction was overturned in the Federal Courts but never reached the US Supreme Court to overturn the precedent established in Korematsu v. United States that the President could, without evidence (i.e. without a finding), claim that a national security threat exists and take action based upon unsupported opinions of animus against a group.

Korematsu v. United States has everything to do with Trump v Hawaii.

In 1942 it was racial animus that resulted in the internment of Japanese based upon the President's unsupported allegation of a national security threat without any evidence of that national security threat.

In 2017 it was religious animus that resulted in the Trump travel ban of people from Muslim nations based upon the President's unsupported allegation of a national security threat based upon national origin without any evidence of that national security threat.

The dissent does address Korematsu v. United States and justifiably so.

Dissent Opinion (Pg 90-91)
Quote:
Today’s holding is all the more troubling given the stark parallels between the reasoning of this case and that of Korematsu v. United States. In Korematsu, the Court gave “a pass [to] an odious, gravely injurious racial classification” authorized by an executive order.

As here, the Government invoked an ill-defined national security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion.
As here, the exclusion order was rooted in dangerous stereotypes about, inter alia, a particular group’s supposed inability to assimilate and desire to harm the United States.
As here, the Government was unwilling to reveal its own intelligence agencies’ views of the alleged security concerns to the very citizens it purported to protect.
And as here, there was strong evidence that impermissible hostility and animus motivated the Government’s policy.
The majority opinion states that Trump's executive order is based upon a "finding of fact" that a national security threat exists but, identical to the Korematsu, the Trump administration has not presented any evidence of that threat.

Just like in the Korematsu case the Trump administration knows that the national security threat they claim doesn't exist.

Quote:
"The Department of Homeland Security has concluded that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of whether an individual poses a terror threat to the USThe report also found hardly any terror-related activities in the US linked to people from the seven countries listed in the travel ban."
https://qz.com/919257/department-of-...el-ban-claims/

Just like in Korematsu we know that the President has animus and a hostile opinion of those he's seeks to persecute with the power of the Presidency.

For those of us that believe in "Originalism" where "textualism" is first and most important factor in a Supreme Court decision that majority opinion completely ignores the requirement under the law that the Trump administration must provide actual evidence, a FINDING, that supports Trump's executive order but that evidence was never presented and, in fact, that evidence doesn't exist.

There's not even evidence of a deficiency in our vetting process from these countries, or any countries, because in the 15 years between the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 and the election of Donald Trump not a single international terrorist attack resulting in the death of any person has been committed in the United States. Starting in 2001 the government has been continuously improving our vetting processes and it does not require the suspension of visa issuance based upon national origin.

The claim made by the Majority Opinion that Trump has met the requirements of 1182(f) is a blatant lie. Trump has never produced any evidence that national origin establishes grounds for considering any person to be a threat to our national security.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-28-2018, 09:38 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,135
Thanks: 9,709
Thanked 8,033 Times in 4,776 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
In a 5-4 decision the US Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban based upon Executive Order No. 13780.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-965_h315.pdf

The President's executive order imposed restrictions on admittance to the United States based upon the national origin of the applicant that the executive order alleged that individuals from these countries represented a terrorist or other national security thread to the United States. The statutory authority for the restriction and/or suspension of travel to the United States is addressed by Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part II 1182 that states:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

The Supreme Court focused on this specific authorization in upholding the Executive Order in the following statement in the majority opinion.



The majority acknowledged the expressed animus and hostility to Muslims reflected by Donald Trump's statements attacking Muslims and calling for banning all Muslim entry during his presidential campaign. It rightfully concluded that the President's personal opinions of animus and hostility against Muslims could not be allowed to interfere with his responsibilities to protect the nation from a national security threat. The law itself prevents a president from action based solely upon personal opinion where, as the majority opinion points out, the President must "find" that an actual threat exists. In law to "find" or a "finding" is a fact based upon evidence.

In all of the court hearings (federal, appeals, and Supreme Court) on Trump's travel ban the federal government has never provided the evidence that a threat exists based upon national origin.

The dissenting opinion focused on this point by referring to the Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. United States (1944) and the majority dismissed this comparison with the following statement.



Korematsu was an American citizen of US decent that was ordered to a Japanese internment camp during WW II. He refused to go and was arrested and charged with violating the order to report. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction based upon a claim made by the US President that the Japanese people represented a national security threat to the United States that justified their internment in camps during WW II.

In 1983 based. upon documents that had been suppressed by the government in 1942, Korematsu filed an appeal of his original conviction because the documents clearly established that there was no evidence that the Japanese represented a national security threat warranting their internment. In short FDR simply lied about the existence of a national security threat to the Supreme Court. Korematsu's conviction was overturned in the Federal Courts but never reached the US Supreme Court to overturn the precedent established in Korematsu v. United States that the President could, without evidence (i.e. without a finding), claim that a national security threat exists and take action based upon unsupported opinions of animus against a group.

Korematsu v. United States has everything to do with Trump v Hawaii.

In 1942 it was racial animus that resulted in the internment of Japanese based upon the President's unsupported allegation of a national security threat without any evidence of that national security threat.

In 2017 it was religious animus that resulted in the Trump travel ban of people from Muslim nations based upon the President's unsupported allegation of a national security threat based upon national origin without any evidence of that national security threat.

The dissent does address Korematsu v. United States and justifiably so.

Dissent Opinion (Pg 90-91)


The majority opinion states that Trump's executive order is based upon a "finding of fact" that a national security threat exists but, identical to the Korematsu, the Trump administration has not presented any evidence of that threat.

Just like in the Korematsu case the Trump administration knows that the national security threat they claim doesn't exist.


https://qz.com/919257/department-of-...el-ban-claims/

Just like in Korematsu we know that the President has animus and a hostile opinion of those he's seeks to persecute with the power of the Presidency.

For those of us that believe in "Originalism" where "textualism" is first and most important factor in a Supreme Court decision that majority opinion completely ignores the requirement under the law that the Trump administration must provide actual evidence, a FINDING, that supports Trump's executive order but that evidence was never presented and, in fact, that evidence doesn't exist.

There's not even evidence of a deficiency in our vetting process from these countries, or any countries, because in the 15 years between the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 and the election of Donald Trump not a single international terrorist attack resulting in the death of any person has been committed in the United States. Starting in 2001 the government has been continuously improving our vetting processes and it does not require the suspension of visa issuance based upon national origin.

The claim made by the Majority Opinion that Trump has met the requirements of 1182(f) is a blatant lie. Trump has never produced any evidence that national origin establishes grounds for considering any person to be a threat to our national security.
As usual a point based on facts not in evidence.

Trump did not suspend entry of Muslims. Trump suspended temporarily entry from certain countries. The same countries Obama had identified as terrorist threats.

Trump did not ban anybody. Hence the word suspend.

There is no need to show evidence of past problems to pass present laws or EO's. Laws and EO's are not contingent on past problems. Point of fact. Although they should, laws need not be based on any rational thought.

Where in the Constitution does it require actual evidence for a President to act?

That's enough for now. Got other things to do. I'll await your response.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:05 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,473
Thanks: 6,528
Thanked 4,347 Times in 2,497 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

The SCOTUS ruled on what was in the EO and only what was in the EO. They did not rule on things that were said in the campaign or anywhere else as they are not in the EO. To try to infer intent into the words of an EO ludicrous. By that standard, anytime anyone proposes or votes on a bill in Congress or as President, the courts could go back on anything anyone ever said on the subject and disqualify their votes on things said anytime in their lifetime. Is that the standard you are proposing?
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:34 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,162
Thanks: 519
Thanked 6,439 Times in 4,634 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
In a 5-4 decision the US Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban based upon Executive Order No. 13780.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-965_h315.pdf

The President's executive order imposed restrictions on admittance to the United States based upon the national origin of the applicant that the executive order alleged that individuals from these countries represented a terrorist or other national security thread to the United States. The statutory authority for the restriction and/or suspension of travel to the United States is addressed by Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part II 1182 that states:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

The Supreme Court focused on this specific authorization in upholding the Executive Order in the following statement in the majority opinion.



The majority acknowledged the expressed animus and hostility to Muslims reflected by Donald Trump's statements attacking Muslims and calling for banning all Muslim entry during his presidential campaign. It rightfully concluded that the President's personal opinions of animus and hostility against Muslims could not be allowed to interfere with his responsibilities to protect the nation from a national security threat. The law itself prevents a president from action based solely upon personal opinion where, as the majority opinion points out, the President must "find" that an actual threat exists. In law to "find" or a "finding" is a fact based upon evidence.

In all of the court hearings (federal, appeals, and Supreme Court) on Trump's travel ban the federal government has never provided the evidence that a threat exists based upon national origin.

The dissenting opinion focused on this point by referring to the Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. United States (1944) and the majority dismissed this comparison with the following statement.



Korematsu was an American citizen of US decent that was ordered to a Japanese internment camp during WW II. He refused to go and was arrested and charged with violating the order to report. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction based upon a claim made by the US President that the Japanese people represented a national security threat to the United States that justified their internment in camps during WW II.

In 1983 based. upon documents that had been suppressed by the government in 1942, Korematsu filed an appeal of his original conviction because the documents clearly established that there was no evidence that the Japanese represented a national security threat warranting their internment. In short FDR simply lied about the existence of a national security threat to the Supreme Court. Korematsu's conviction was overturned in the Federal Courts but never reached the US Supreme Court to overturn the precedent established in Korematsu v. United States that the President could, without evidence (i.e. without a finding), claim that a national security threat exists and take action based upon unsupported opinions of animus against a group.

Korematsu v. United States has everything to do with Trump v Hawaii.

In 1942 it was racial animus that resulted in the internment of Japanese based upon the President's unsupported allegation of a national security threat without any evidence of that national security threat.

In 2017 it was religious animus that resulted in the Trump travel ban of people from Muslim nations based upon the President's unsupported allegation of a national security threat based upon national origin without any evidence of that national security threat.

The dissent does address Korematsu v. United States and justifiably so.

Dissent Opinion (Pg 90-91)


The majority opinion states that Trump's executive order is based upon a "finding of fact" that a national security threat exists but, identical to the Korematsu, the Trump administration has not presented any evidence of that threat.

Just like in the Korematsu case the Trump administration knows that the national security threat they claim doesn't exist.


https://qz.com/919257/department-of-...el-ban-claims/

Just like in Korematsu we know that the President has animus and a hostile opinion of those he's seeks to persecute with the power of the Presidency.

For those of us that believe in "Originalism" where "textualism" is first and most important factor in a Supreme Court decision that majority opinion completely ignores the requirement under the law that the Trump administration must provide actual evidence, a FINDING, that supports Trump's executive order but that evidence was never presented and, in fact, that evidence doesn't exist.

There's not even evidence of a deficiency in our vetting process from these countries, or any countries, because in the 15 years between the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 and the election of Donald Trump not a single international terrorist attack resulting in the death of any person has been committed in the United States. Starting in 2001 the government has been continuously improving our vetting processes and it does not require the suspension of visa issuance based upon national origin.

The claim made by the Majority Opinion that Trump has met the requirements of 1182(f) is a blatant lie. Trump has never produced any evidence that national origin establishes grounds for considering any person to be a threat to our national security.
I nominate the silly post above for recipient of the Rambling Nothing award.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2018, 09:33 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,369
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
As usual a point based on facts not in evidence.

Trump did not suspend entry of Muslims. Trump suspended temporarily entry from certain countries. The same countries Obama had identified as terrorist threats.

Trump did not ban anybody. Hence the word suspend.

There is no need to show evidence of past problems to pass present laws or EO's. Laws and EO's are not contingent on past problems. Point of fact. Although they should, laws need not be based on any rational thought.

Where in the Constitution does it require actual evidence for a President to act?

That's enough for now. Got other things to do. I'll await your response.
FACT:

The Visa-Waiver Program did not identify any threat based upon national origin by the people from the seven countries listed. The Visa-Waiver Program did identify a threat by people not from those seven countries that may have gone to those countries to meet with foreign terrorists that had invaded those countries and that did not require a visa to enter the United States.

Please do a little research on the Visa-Waiver Program and what the actual revision listing the seven countries addressed.

FACT:

The Law requires a "finding" by the government but no evidence supporting a "finding" has been presented by President Trump to authorize his executive order. They can't even produce a "finding" based upon the Visa-Waiver Program because the Visa-Waiver Program never found any evidence that the people born in the seven countries represented a terrorist threat based upon national origin. Trump's own DHS debunked the claim that national origin could establish that a threat existed and even states that the people from the countries listed represented far less of a threat than those from other countries statistically.

There's been no evidence to support a threat based upon national origin, EVER.

The criteria of a "finding" has not been met by President Trump and the Supreme Court was never presented with the evidence necessary to establish a "finding" by President Trump. The claim made in the majority opinion is a lie because Trump never provided the "finding" of a national security threat based upon national origin (that Trump claimed) that would authorize the travel ban.

The five justices did not apply a textual interpretation that would mandate the evidence to support a finding.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2018, 09:39 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,369
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
I nominate the silly post above for recipient of the Rambling Nothing award.
It doesn't bother you when Supreme Court justices make a false statement in their decision?

The law requires a "finding" (factual statement supported by unquestionable evidence) to authorize the President to impose restrictions. The Trump administration has never produced the evidence that national origin represents a threat to the national security of the United States.

The Five "conservative" justices claim that Trump did provide that evidence but we know Trump didn't provide that evidence for one simple reason. It doesn't exist!

There has never been any evidence that national origin represents a threat to the national security of the United States. The Department of Homeland Security has even stated that in reporting to President Trump.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-29-2018, 09:45 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,369
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
The SCOTUS ruled on what was in the EO and only what was in the EO. They did not rule on things that were said in the campaign or anywhere else as they are not in the EO. To try to infer intent into the words of an EO ludicrous. By that standard, anytime anyone proposes or votes on a bill in Congress or as President, the courts could go back on anything anyone ever said on the subject and disqualify their votes on things said anytime in their lifetime. Is that the standard you are proposing?
The Supreme Court ruled on the statutory authority that grants the president the ability to impose travel restrictions (I provided the quotation from the decision). That law require a "finding" (Statement of fact backed by objective evidence) and the five conservative members of the court claimed that Trump provided the evidence to support the finding that national origin established a threat to the security of the United States.

Trump has never produced that evidence in any of the court proceedings on his travel ban even when judges specifically requested it in an effort to support the President's EO. The DOJ didn't present that evidence before the Supreme Court either.

They didn't present the evidence that national origin represented a threat to the security of the United States because there is no evidence that national origin represents a threat to the security of the United States.

Trump's EO failed to meet the basic requirement under the law that authorizes the president to impose travel restrictions. It never had a finding.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-01-2018, 08:57 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,369
Thanks: 1,491
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,836 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

With Republicans about to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court the difference between an "Originalist" that applies a textual interpretation to the Constitution and a "Conservative' that applies a Republican interpretation to the Constitution is significant.

This case is significant because the claim by Republicans is that they support Originalism (a textual interpretation) but that didn't happen here.

The authority under the law for President Trump to issue the travel bans is based upon these words in the law. "Wherever the President finds.." and a "finding" is a statement of fact supported by undisputed evidence.

The criteria being used for the travel bans is national origin. So where is the "finding" (facts supported by evidence) that national origin represents a threat to the security of the United States? If the "finding" doesn't exist then President Trump did not have the statutory authority to issue the Travel Bans.

I'm looking at the evidence that a "finding" establishing national origin represents a national security threat simply doesn't exist.

We can start at the very beginning. (Acting) Attornery General Sally Yates, that should have been provided with a copy of the first EO for review before it was released, refused to defend the EO when she read it stating it did not comply with the law or the Constitution.

When the first EO was challenged in federal courts around the country the "finding" that supported the EO was not provided for by the Department of Justice to establish that the threat existed. Judge Leonie M. Brinkema that presided over a case on the first travel ban said judges throughout the country were “begging” for evidence from the government to defend the ban. The DOJ didn't present the "finding" before Judge Brinkema or any other federal judge for the first. second or third travel ban and didn't present the evidence for the "finding" before the Supreme Court.

The Department of Homeland Security during an internal review for President Trump stated that national origin didn't provide the grounds for establishing a national threat.

Every expert on terrorism and national security outside of the Trump administration has stated national origin does not establish a national security threat.

In Trump v Hawaii the five "conservative" justices on the Supreme Court couldn't have applied an originalist (textual) interpretation of the law because to date there's never been any evidence to support a finding that national origin represents a national security threat to the United States. The Executive Orders issued by President Trump did not meet the statutory requirements granting the president to impose restrictions because the finding doesn't exist.

This is a grave concern for all of America because it appears that Republicans want a "conservative" justice that bases their decisions on the Republican agenda as opposed to an "Originalist" that bases their decisions on the letter of the law and the Constitution.

America can live with an Originalist Justice on the US Supreme Court but it can't survive as a Constitutional Republic with a Republican Justice on the US Supreme Court.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-01-2018, 11:15 AM
Bat Bat is offline
Hinged
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,743
Thanks: 72
Thanked 1,155 Times in 701 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

I would just like to point out that every country listed in the ban is controlled by people that are predominately right-handed.
Every one.
As in no exception.
Every one of those countries is predominately right-handed.
Every one.
Soon, every one of us that is right-handed could be targeted. It starts with restricting predominately right-handed countries, as is this situation. Next thing you know, all of us that are right-handed become a target.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2018, 01:53 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,962
Thanks: 935
Thanked 1,536 Times in 1,239 Posts
Default Re: Trump v Hawaii (Travel Ban) - A Flawed Decision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat View Post
I would just like to point out that every country listed in the ban is controlled by people that are predominately right-handed.
Every one.
As in no exception.
Every one of those countries is predominately right-handed.
Every one.
Soon, every one of us that is right-handed could be targeted. It starts with restricting predominately right-handed countries, as is this situation. Next thing you know, all of us that are right-handed become a target.
Yer wrong Bat!I have word that there is a person NOW “nicknamed Lefty” was working in a Hawaiian sugar canfield and chopped his RIGHT HAND while welding a VERY SHARP MACHETE in his LEFT HAND.
__________________
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values."
French President Emmanuel Macron
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ban, decision, flawed, hawaii, travel, trump

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0