Trump's idea may be Constitutional

[David Hartung]

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

So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?

Given recent events, I tend to think that it might be.

[milt....@gmail.com]

It's not constitutional. Not even a little. "Class of aliens" isn't decided based on religion. "Muslim" isn't a class of alien. I know you may find this difficult to believe, but the BOR applies to our entire system.

Not to mention, it's not like people are tattooed "Muslim" on their wrists when they're born. How the hell do you know someone is Muslim?

>
> Given recent events, I tend to think that it might be.

So, you, a Christian Pastor, think the right to free expression of religion, should be sacrificed if it means a little extra perceived safety? Wow, it's funny that a heathen like me thinks that's complete crap. Just as you should not have to give up your religious rights just because most domestic terrorism is committed by Christians, I also don't think anyone should have to give up their right to be a Muslim because a few Muslims are assholes.

You and the rest of the right wing are just bound and determined to give Daesh/ISIL everything they want. You're moral cowards.

[Tom Sr.]

--------------
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/law-experts-weigh-donald-trumps-plan-ban-muslims-n476041

*Law Experts Weigh Donald Trump's Plan to Ban Muslims From U.S.*
by Ari Melber
Dec 8 2015

Donald Trump proposed a system of religious discrimination for U.S. immigration policy on Monday, advocating a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," according to a written campaign statement.

The incendiary proposal was swiftly denounced by Trump's rivals in both parties, and as a policy proposal it is probably illegal.

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening.

Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists."

In the modern era, federal immigration law has generally cited religion to protect and welcome refugees facing religious discrimination by other countries -- not to advance discrimination by the U.S. In 1980, for example, Congress passed an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect some potential refugees facing "fear of persecution" on account of their "religion," among other factors.

Earlier in the 20th Century, Congress did set immigration limits based on what are now considered suspect classes, such as excluding immigrants based on race or national origin. Congress repealed racial quotas in 1952, and eliminated quotas based on national origin, which had been in force since the 1920s, in 1965.

As a matter of federal law, Trump's call to insert religious discrimination into national immigration policy would hark back to policies repealed many decades ago.

Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf said that while U.S. policy "routinely applies different immigration rules for nationals of different countries," Trump's proposal to only exclude "foreign nationals who are Muslim" would likely be "unconstitutional."

Dorf, an expert in constitutional law, noted that three years ago, the House "passed a resolution expressing regret for the Chinese Exclusion laws, which were based on ethnic prejudice," and he told MSNBC "Immigration policy based on religious prejudice would be equally odious."

Assessing Trump's plan, Stanford Law professor Jenny Martinez said "Excluding all people of a particular religion from entering the country on the sole basis of their religion would, in my view, clearly violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection."

Martinez, an expert in international law, added that the only legal support for such an approach comes in older, discredited cases. "To the extent there are precedents for this kind of blanket discrimination," she told MSNBC, "they are ones, like the Japanese internment camps upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu, which all reasonable constitutional experts consider tragic mistakes that we should not repeat."
--------------




You truly are So Very Fucking STUPID, Hartung, you un-American hate-filled BIGOT.































*SPIT*

. . .

[DoD]

<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>> [...]
>> (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.
>> [...]
>>
>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>
> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.

You have no credibility. Not even a little.

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:21:26 AM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
> You have no credibility. Not even a little.

Another moral coward speaks.






































































*yawn*

. . .

[First Post]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:21:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Shook cannot show you in the constitution where it says that America
must allow any and all who wish to enter it to do so.
Shook simply refuses to acknowledge that one of his heroes, Jimmy
Carter, banned all Iranians from entering the US during his term and
there wasn't even a clear and present danger of an Iranian terrorist
attack against the continental US at the time.
And shook warps Trump's statement of "people trying to come in from
muslim countries" to just muslims period because he is unable to
scream religious racism if he doesn't reword it.
As if anyone is going to take an imbecile who claims to be staunchly
against all religions (only if they are Christian) yet defends Islam
nearly as much as a true Islamist.

[DoD]

"Tom Sr." <thomas.sw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9917888-b9ee-40d2...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:21:26 AM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>
>
> Another moral coward speaks.

Says Homo Dementus.....

[wy]

What recent events? You mean the 45 people killed by so-called terrorist actions in the last 14 years or 140,000+ Americans killed by other Americans in the last 14 years?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

I've heard people say that's NOT constitutional and yet Obama still does
what is said to be unconstitutional.

It seems that to a Liberal something being unconstitutional is
irrelevant until it's something the Liberals don't like.


*The ideology of Liberalism is a never ending stream of contradictions*

[milt....@gmail.com]

And you just proved you have less than me.

[milt....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, First Post wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:21:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> ><milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...
> >> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
> >>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
> >>> [...]
> >>> (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.
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
> >>
> >> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
> >
> >You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>
> Shook cannot show you in the constitution where it says that America
> must allow any and all who wish to enter it to do so.

I don't have to. I can show you where the president can't discriminate against anyone based on religion. First Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it.

> Shook simply refuses to acknowledge that one of his heroes, Jimmy
> Carter, banned all Iranians from entering the US during his term and
> there wasn't even a clear and present danger of an Iranian terrorist
> attack against the continental US at the time.

Refuses to acknowledge? I SAID he did. But it was because Iran declared war against us and held 52 of our hostages. He banned Iranians, not Muslims.

I know this may come as a shock, but Tehran had one of the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel at the time. Iran also had a large Christian population. None were allowed here.

> And shook warps Trump's statement of "people trying to come in from
> muslim countries" to just muslims period because he is unable to
> scream religious racism if he doesn't reword it.

There is no such thing as a "Muslim country." Also, nothing about Trump's statement limited it to specific countries.

> As if anyone is going to take an imbecile who claims to be staunchly
> against all religions (only if they are Christian) yet defends Islam
> nearly as much as a true Islamist.

Me? Against all religions? Based on what? Because I call out religious hypocrites?

Tell you what, fuckface; when you come out and claim all Christians are responsible for the Christians who commit terrorist acts in this country, I'll come out and defend Christians just as strongly. But you and your right wing band of idiots don't do that. You only blame all Muslims for everything a few random Muslim fuckwits do.

[David Hartung]

On 12/10/2015 10:09 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>> [...]
>> (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.
>> [...]
>>
>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>
> It's not constitutional. Not even a little. "Class of aliens" isn't decided based on religion. "Muslim" isn't a class of alien.

Isn't it?

> I know you may find this difficult to believe, but the BOR applies to our entire system.

The Bill of Rights applies to those who are not citizens and who are not
yet in our country? Emotionally I agree, practically I don't see how
this can be.

> Not to mention, it's not like people are tattooed "Muslim" on their wrists when they're born. How the hell do you know someone is Muslim?

A good point. Perhaps a better approach would be to ban those who are
coming from those-parts of the world where there is a problem with
violent Islam, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

>> Given recent events, I tend to think that it might be.
>
> So, you, a Christian Pastor, think the right to free expression of religion, should be sacrificed if it means a little extra perceived safety?

How is the desire to protect our nation from violent Jihadists, a denial
of religious expression?

> Wow, it's funny that a heathen like me thinks that's complete crap. Just as you should not have to give up your religious rights just because most domestic terrorism is committed by Christians, I also don't think anyone should have to give up their right to be a Muslim because a few Muslims are assholes.

Perhaps, which is why I have not made this a hard and fast position.

Think about it. We have valid reason to believe that a percentage of
these people wish to come to the USA in order to do us harm. we also
know that it is virtually impossible to identify these people before
they get here. Is it not rational to limit the potential damage by not
allowing that group in?

> You and the rest of the right wing are just bound and determined to give Daesh/ISIL everything they want. You're moral cowards.

Speak for yourself.

[David Hartung]

On 12/10/2015 01:13 PM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, First Post wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:21:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> (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.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>>>
>>>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
>>>
>>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>>
>> Shook cannot show you in the constitution where it says that America
>> must allow any and all who wish to enter it to do so.
>
> I don't have to. I can show you where the president can't discriminate against anyone based on religion. First Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it.

You ave apprently not actually read the First Amendment.

>> Shook simply refuses to acknowledge that one of his heroes, Jimmy
>> Carter, banned all Iranians from entering the US during his term and
>> there wasn't even a clear and present danger of an Iranian terrorist
>> attack against the continental US at the time.
>
> Refuses to acknowledge? I SAID he did. But it was because Iran declared war against us and held 52 of our hostages. He banned Iranians, not Muslims.

Support?

> I know this may come as a shock, but Tehran had one of the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel at the time. Iran also had a large Christian population. None were allowed here.
>
>
>> And shook warps Trump's statement of "people trying to come in from
>> muslim countries" to just muslims period because he is unable to
>> scream religious racism if he doesn't reword it.
>
> There is no such thing as a "Muslim country." Also, nothing about Trump's statement limited it to specific countries.

You may wish to revisit this. Islam as presented today does not
recognize a separation of church and state.

>
>> As if anyone is going to take an imbecile who claims to be staunchly
>> against all religions (only if they are Christian) yet defends Islam
>> nearly as much as a true Islamist.
>
> Me? Against all religions? Based on what? Because I call out religious hypocrites?
>
> Tell you what, fuckface; when you come out and claim all Christians are responsible for the Christians who commit terrorist acts in this country,

You have never been able to identify specific acts of Christian terrorism.

[David Hartung]

The best indication thus far that Trump's idea might just be legal, as
well as a good idea, is that Tom opposes it.

[Joe Cooper]

milt....@gmail.com wrote in
news:b93dd6b1-90c8-420c...@googlegroups.com:

> I don't have to. I can show you where the president can't discriminate
> against anyone based on religion. First Amendment. Perhaps you've
> heard of it.

Sorry, but 8(f) USC 1182 begs to differ, and has been validated by SCOTUS.

--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS"

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who didn’t
ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really believe."
(Ann Coulter)

[First Post]

Look for shook to start listing people that have committed horrible
acts that happened to be professed Christians but did not commit their
acts in the name of Christianity.
Funny how the hypocrite runs to excuse Islam when it's followers
commit acts of terror while often citing actual verses from the Koran
as justification but, as we have seen from him and most other liberal
posters here in the past, will blame all of Christianity for the
crimes of a single individual if it is found that the individual in
question happened to be of the Christian faith.
You, yourself have recently seen him and his liberal cohorts here
repeating Obama's idiotic rationalization of Islamic jihad by citing
800 to 1000 year old history in their attempts to broadbrush all
Christians as having the same mentality now as they did then.

It is curious as to why shook has such a fondness of showing just how
much of a hypocrite he and the left are.

[Steve]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:13:12 -0800 (PST), milt....@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, First Post wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:21:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> ><milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> >>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> (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.
>> >>> [...]
>> >>>
>> >>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>> >>
>> >> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
>> >
>> >You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>>
>> Shook cannot show you in the constitution where it says that America
>> must allow any and all who wish to enter it to do so.
>
>I don't have to. I can show you where the president can't discriminate against anyone based on religion. First Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it.

<LOL> Milt thinks the First Amendment deals with discrimination? Milt
has always had problems understanding the First Amendment..

"Your boss (supposing you work for a private employer) fires
you because you held a Bush rally in your back yard. You should
sue him, but on what basis? Your First Amendment rights, of
course."
--Milt Shook

>> Shook simply refuses to acknowledge that one of his heroes, Jimmy
>> Carter, banned all Iranians from entering the US during his term and
>> there wasn't even a clear and present danger of an Iranian terrorist
>> attack against the continental US at the time.
>
>Refuses to acknowledge? I SAID he did. But it was because Iran declared war against us and held 52 of our hostages. He banned Iranians, not Muslims.
>
>I know this may come as a shock, but Tehran had one of the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel at the time. Iran also had a large Christian population. None were allowed here.
>
>
>> And shook warps Trump's statement of "people trying to come in from
>> muslim countries" to just muslims period because he is unable to
>> scream religious racism if he doesn't reword it.
>
>There is no such thing as a "Muslim country." Also, nothing about Trump's statement limited it to specific countries.
>
>> As if anyone is going to take an imbecile who claims to be staunchly
>> against all religions (only if they are Christian) yet defends Islam
>> nearly as much as a true Islamist.
>
>Me? Against all religions? Based on what? Because I call out religious hypocrites?
>
>Tell you what, fuckface; when you come out and claim all Christians are responsible for the Christians who commit terrorist acts in this country, I'll come out and defend Christians just as strongly. But you and your right wing band of idiots don't do that. You only blame all Muslims for everything a few random Muslim fuckwits do.

--


In any conflict, the boundaries of behavior are defined by
the party that cares least about morality!

--Doc Ford, Character in THE MANGROVE COAST by Randy Wayne White

[milt....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
> On 12/10/2015 10:09 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
> >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
> >> [...]
> >> (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.
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
> >
> > It's not constitutional. Not even a little. "Class of aliens" isn't decided based on religion. "Muslim" isn't a class of alien.
>
> Isn't it?

No. Look at the law you posted.

Oh, yeah, and look at the Constitution. That, too.

>
> > I know you may find this difficult to believe, but the BOR applies to our entire system.
>
> The Bill of Rights applies to those who are not citizens and who are not
> yet in our country? Emotionally I agree, practically I don't see how
> this can be.

Yes, it does apply to all persons who deal with the federal government. Ever since the 14th Amendment.

>
> > Not to mention, it's not like people are tattooed "Muslim" on their wrists when they're born. How the hell do you know someone is Muslim?
>
> A good point. Perhaps a better approach would be to ban those who are
> coming from those-parts of the world where there is a problem with
> violent Islam, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

I have no problem with that, if there's a reason for it. But given that most of the people who live in those countries are victims, I'm not sure what the point would be of just blocking immigration from those countries. As for Pakistan, I'm not even sure why you list them.

>
> >> Given recent events, I tend to think that it might be.
> >
> > So, you, a Christian Pastor, think the right to free expression of religion, should be sacrificed if it means a little extra perceived safety?
>
> How is the desire to protect our nation from violent Jihadists, a denial
> of religious expression?
>
> > Wow, it's funny that a heathen like me thinks that's complete crap. Just as you should not have to give up your religious rights just because most domestic terrorism is committed by Christians, I also don't think anyone should have to give up their right to be a Muslim because a few Muslims are assholes.
>
> Perhaps, which is why I have not made this a hard and fast position.
>
> Think about it. We have valid reason to believe that a percentage of
> these people wish to come to the USA in order to do us harm. we also
> know that it is virtually impossible to identify these people before
> they get here. Is it not rational to limit the potential damage by not
> allowing that group in?

No, it's not rational. Not even a little. If we are at war with a country, it makes sense to block immigration, for obvious reasons. And yes, I'm all for screening everyone who comes here as thoroughly as possible. But to "block all Muslims" is just silly. For one thing, the bad ones can still get here. What's to stop an Iraqi Christian who sympathizes with his Muslim brothers from going to Germany, living there for a year or to and then immigrating from there?

What you're asking for is impossible. You want a GUARANTEE that no one coming here will ever harm us. In the meantime. GOOD PEOPLE who just happen to be Muslim -- people who are the most common VICTIMS of the really bad guys -- are being slaughtered, in part because we're a country full of pussies.

FFS, David, we should be sticking it TO Daesh/ISIL, not kowtowing to those assholes. What has happened to this country, that we can't do the right thing, if there's minuscule risk involved? We already survive 33,000 gun deaths a year; if we can do that, we can survive anything.

Let me also point out that violent men of "fighting age" will stick out like a sore thumb when they come over here. The Syrian Army, Syrian rebels and Daesh are abducting and forcing such men into military service.

>
> > You and the rest of the right wing are just bound and determined to give Daesh/ISIL everything they want. You're moral cowards.
>
> Speak for yourself.

I do. I'm not afraid of these people; certainly not enough to allow women and children to suffer through a war in which they are basically victims of a type of genocide.

Banning all Muslims is the ultimate in moral cowardice. Sorry if you object, but it's true.

[Steve]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:35:02 -0800 (PST), milt....@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 12/10/2015 10:09 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>> >> [...]
>> >> (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.
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>> >
>> > It's not constitutional. Not even a little. "Class of aliens" isn't decided based on religion. "Muslim" isn't a class of alien.
>>
>> Isn't it?
>
>No. Look at the law you posted.
>
>Oh, yeah, and look at the Constitution. That, too.
>>
>> > I know you may find this difficult to believe, but the BOR applies to our entire system.
>>
>> The Bill of Rights applies to those who are not citizens and who are not
>> yet in our country? Emotionally I agree, practically I don't see how
>> this can be.
>
>Yes, it does apply to all persons who deal with the federal government. Ever since the 14th Amendment.

Total Nonsense...

The 14th Amendment most certainly does not apply to non-citizens
outside of the country... It applies to "any person within its
jurisdiction."


Remember that Milt Shook incorrectly and stupidly argues
that the First Amendment, indeed the entire Bill of Rights, protects
him from non-government individuals and businesses.

[milt....@gmail.com]

You're joking. If I have to support that, you're proving that only reading right wing media makes you ignorant.

Here, anyway, just because it's fun:

http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/

>
> > I know this may come as a shock, but Tehran had one of the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel at the time. Iran also had a large Christian population. None were allowed here.
> >
> >
> >> And shook warps Trump's statement of "people trying to come in from
> >> muslim countries" to just muslims period because he is unable to
> >> scream religious racism if he doesn't reword it.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a "Muslim country." Also, nothing about Trump's statement limited it to specific countries.
>
> You may wish to revisit this. Islam as presented today does not
> recognize a separation of church and state.
> >
> >> As if anyone is going to take an imbecile who claims to be staunchly
> >> against all religions (only if they are Christian) yet defends Islam
> >> nearly as much as a true Islamist.
> >
> > Me? Against all religions? Based on what? Because I call out religious hypocrites?
> >
> > Tell you what, fuckface; when you come out and claim all Christians are responsible for the Christians who commit terrorist acts in this country,
>
> You have never been able to identify specific acts of Christian terrorism.

Because I don't need to. Again, I can't believe I have to explain this.

First of all, I don't refer to terrorist acts committed by people who happen to be Christian as "Christian terrorism."

See, I'm consistent. Just as I know that terrorist acts committed by Muslims are not done as instructed by Islam, I also know that terrorist acts like the Olympic bombings, the various abortion clinic bombings, the murder of Dr. Tiller and the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting are not actually done because Christianity instructs them to do it.

There is no "Muslim terrorism" AND there is no "Christian terrorism," at least in this country. There are horrible people who commit horrible acts, and some claim they're in the name of God, but you and I both know they're not.

At least I hope we do.

[Steve]

There are Islamic terrorists. I think it's funny that the leftist
freaks can't understand that...

That means, if the store owner stopped me from exercising my First
Amendment rights, and I petition the government for redress, and the
judge DOES NOT issue any sort of order stopping the store owner from
repeating his actions, he would be effectively abridging my right to
free speech.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Ap-dnSneNsm55zTdRVn-gQ%40comcast.com&

"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the Bill
of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane. That
means, if a mercenary decides to take over your house, you're screwed,
because they're not the government. In reality, you can shoot them.
Where did that come from? The government works in a lot of ways. If
someone does something to violate your right to free speech -- REALLY
violate it, not just cancel a contract or refuse to spend money to put
out your album, you take them to court. If the judge decides your free
speech rights were violated by that person, you win. Why, you ask?
Because to rule otherwise would violate the First Amendment.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> That means, if the store owner stopped me from exercising my First
> Amendment rights, and I petition the government for redress, and the
> judge DOES NOT issue any sort of order stopping the store owner from
> repeating his actions, he would be effectively abridging my right to
> free speech.
> --Milt Shook
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Ap-dnSneNsm55zTdRVn-gQ%40comcast.com&

Apply that to the 2nd amendment and milt Shook is saying that gays and
gun owners are equal and should be equally allowed to buy stuff in any
store they don't break into.... And the government should force the
store owners to allow the guns inside the store, just as they would his
free speech or the gay.

The real truth is that a store is PRIVATE property and the Store Owner
has a 14th amendment right to his property and the Federal and State
governments have to use "eminent domain" to control private property.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law;"

Due process means eminent domain.

SO Milt's 1st and my 2nd and the gays 14th amendment rights are all
secondary and mean nothing since the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER can limit
access to his property for what ever reason he decides..... and to
prove it all they have to do is lock the door.

*The ideology of Liberalism is a never ending stream of contradictions*

--
That's Karma

[Steve]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:44:10 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
been exposed as a never ending stream of

First of all, understand that Milt makes no sense... He's claiming
that if he's standing on a soap box on a street corner begging for
money and I set up my amplifier next to him and broadcast classic rock
and roll to drown him out, he can sue me under the First Amendment for
interfering with his free speech....

[David Hartung]

You said that Carter banned Iranians because they had declared war
against us. Your Snopes link does not support that claim.

>>> I know this may come as a shock, but Tehran had one of the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel at the time. Iran also had a large Christian population. None were allowed here.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And shook warps Trump's statement of "people trying to come in from
>>>> muslim countries" to just muslims period because he is unable to
>>>> scream religious racism if he doesn't reword it.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a "Muslim country." Also, nothing about Trump's statement limited it to specific countries.
>>
>> You may wish to revisit this. Islam as presented today does not
>> recognize a separation of church and state.
>>>
>>>> As if anyone is going to take an imbecile who claims to be staunchly
>>>> against all religions (only if they are Christian) yet defends Islam
>>>> nearly as much as a true Islamist.
>>>
>>> Me? Against all religions? Based on what? Because I call out religious hypocrites?
>>>
>>> Tell you what, fuckface; when you come out and claim all Christians are responsible for the Christians who commit terrorist acts in this country,
>>
>> You have never been able to identify specific acts of Christian terrorism.
>
> Because I don't need to. Again, I can't believe I have to explain this.
>
> First of all, I don't refer to terrorist acts committed by people who happen to be Christian as "Christian terrorism."
>
> See, I'm consistent. Just as I know that terrorist acts committed by Muslims are not done as instructed by Islam, I also know that terrorist acts like the Olympic bombings, the various abortion clinic bombings, the murder of Dr. Tiller and the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting are not actually done because Christianity instructs them to do it.
>
> There is no "Muslim terrorism" AND there is no "Christian terrorism," at least in this country. There are horrible people who commit horrible acts, and some claim they're in the name of God, but you and I both know they're not.
>
> At least I hope we do.

Interesting.

[David Hartung]

On 12/10/2015 04:35 PM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> Banning all Muslims is the ultimate in moral cowardice. Sorry if you object, but it's true.

Sort of like denying that there is such a thing as Islamic terrorism?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

And sort of like Liberals banning guns from those honest hard working
Americans.





--
That's Karma

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote in
news:hL2dnan42IwGqffL...@giganews.com:

Does the IRA prove there is such a thing as Catholic terrorism?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Did they teach terrorism in Catholic schools in Ireland, like they teach
terrorism in the Muslim Madrassas?

[Rüdî Cänözà]

It proves beyond dispute that there is such a thing as Irish Catholic
terrorism. Yes.

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:43:46 AM UTC-5, DoD wrote:

> "Tom Sr." wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:21:26 AM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
> >> You have no credibility. Not even a little.

> > --
> >
> > Another moral coward speaks.
> --
>
> Says Homo Dementus.....














































































































*yawn*

. . .

[Tom Sr.]

> --

>
> The best indication thus far that Trump's idea might just be legal,

It seems you failed to read the article that quoted a number of constitutional scholars stating Trump's BIGOTED "idea" was most likely NOT legal in our America.

How not a surprise.

> well as a good idea, is that Tom opposes it.

YOU, Hartung, thought marriage equality was a bad idea and should be illegal -- yet here we *both* are in America with legal gay marriage.


So WRONG yet again, Hartung.


Ha, ha.


































Looooooooooooooooser Ko0k.

. . .

[David Hartung]

On 12/11/2015 08:08 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 3:18:44 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 12/10/2015 10:20 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> You truly are So Very Fucking STUPID, Hartung, you un-American
>>> hate-filled BIGOT.
>> --
>>
>> The best indication thus far that Trump's idea might just be legal,
>
>
> It seems you failed to read the article that quoted a number of constitutional scholars stating Trump's BIGOTED "idea" was most likely NOT legal in our America.
>
> How not a surprise.

Did you happen to read the post which cited the section of the
immigration law, which says that the President has the power to do
exactly what Trump suggests?

>> well as a good idea, is that Tom opposes it.
>
>
>
> YOU, Hartung, thought marriage equality was a bad idea and should be illegal -- yet here we *both* are in America with legal gay marriage.
>
>
> So WRONG yet again, Hartung.

Legal is not the same as right, or good.

[wy]

Sort of like denying there is such a thing as American on American terrorism 10,000+ times each year?

[NoBody]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:13:12 -0800 (PST), milt....@gmail.com wrote:

And Islamic Jihad has NOT declared war on us? Milt, you're beyond
stupid here.

[NoBody]

It's kind of sad when snopes starts twisting itself into a pretzel to
explain something.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 8:09 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>> [...]
>> (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.
>> [...]
>>
>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>

> It's not constitutional. Not even a little. "Class of aliens" isn't decided based on religion.

Of *COURSE* it can be, you knuckle-dragging law-ignorant fuckwit.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 8:21 AM, DoD wrote:
>
>
> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...

>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>> [...]
>>> (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.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>
>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
>

> You have no credibility. Not even a little.

He really doesn't. This fuckwit shookie at one time claimed to be a
paralegal. That seems virtually impossible now. He exhibits literally
zero understanding of the law or Constitution.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 8:29 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:21:26 AM UTC-5, DoD wrote:

>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>
>

> Another moral coward speaks.

What a stupid and sophomoric comment. You really are stupid.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 8:43 AM, DoD wrote:
>
>
> "Tom Sr." <thomas.sw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b9917888-b9ee-40d2...@googlegroups.com...

>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:21:26 AM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
>>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>>
>>
>> Another moral coward speaks.
>

> Says Homo Dementus.....

Good one! I'll have to remember that and use it.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 8:41 AM, First Post wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:21:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>>> [...]
>>>> (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.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>>
>>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
>>

>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>

> Shook cannot show you in the constitution where it says that America
> must allow any and all who wish to enter it to do so.

shookie has literally *ZERO* knowledge and understanding of the
Constitution.

> Shook simply refuses to acknowledge that one of his heroes, Jimmy
> Carter, banned all Iranians from entering the US during his term and
> there wasn't even a clear and present danger of an Iranian terrorist
> attack against the continental US at the time.

> And shook warps Trump's statement of "people trying to come in from
> muslim countries" to just muslims period because he is unable to
> scream religious racism if he doesn't reword it.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 11:13 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, First Post wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:21:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> (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.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>>>
>>>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
>>>
>>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>>
>> Shook cannot show you in the constitution where it says that America
>> must allow any and all who wish to enter it to do so.
>

> I don't have to. I can show you where the president can't discriminate against anyone based on religion. First Amendment.

No. The first amendment has nothing to do with it. In no way would the
first amendment interfere with an order such as Trump has proposed.

You can't say a single correct thing about the Constitution. You are
stupid nearly beyond belief, but you have demonstrated your abject
stupidity so often and with such conviction that in the end, it is
believable.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 12:29 PM, First Post wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:16:44 -0600, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On 12/10/2015 01:13 PM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, First Post wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:21:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> (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.
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>>>>
>>>> Shook cannot show you in the constitution where it says that America
>>>> must allow any and all who wish to enter it to do so.
>>>

>>> I don't have to. I can show you where the president can't discriminate against anyone based on religion. First Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it.
>>
>> You ave apprently not actually read the First Amendment.
>>

>>>> Shook simply refuses to acknowledge that one of his heroes, Jimmy
>>>> Carter, banned all Iranians from entering the US during his term and
>>>> there wasn't even a clear and present danger of an Iranian terrorist
>>>> attack against the continental US at the time.
>>>

>>> Refuses to acknowledge? I SAID he did. But it was because Iran declared war against us and held 52 of our hostages. He banned Iranians, not Muslims.
>>
>> Support?
>>

>>> I know this may come as a shock, but Tehran had one of the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel at the time. Iran also had a large Christian population. None were allowed here.
>>>
>>>

>>>> And shook warps Trump's statement of "people trying to come in from
>>>> muslim countries" to just muslims period because he is unable to
>>>> scream religious racism if he doesn't reword it.
>>>

>>> There is no such thing as a "Muslim country." Also, nothing about Trump's statement limited it to specific countries.
>>
>> You may wish to revisit this. Islam as presented today does not
>> recognize a separation of church and state.
>>>

>>>> As if anyone is going to take an imbecile who claims to be staunchly
>>>> against all religions (only if they are Christian) yet defends Islam
>>>> nearly as much as a true Islamist.
>>>

>>> Me? Against all religions? Based on what? Because I call out religious hypocrites?
>>>
>>> Tell you what, fuckface; when you come out and claim all Christians are responsible for the Christians who commit terrorist acts in this country,
>>
>> You have never been able to identify specific acts of Christian terrorism.
>

> Look for shook to start listing people that have committed horrible
> acts that happened to be professed Christians but did not commit their
> acts in the name of Christianity.

That's the key difference. All my morally and intellectually confused
"liberal" friends keep posting some stupid shit to Facebook that ISIS is
no more representative of Islam than the KKK is or was of Christianity,
but while the KKK somewhat fancied itself as emblematic of Christianity,
Christian dogma was in no way the basis of their agenda.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:21:26 AM UTC-7, DoD wrote:
>> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>>> [...]
>>>> (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.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>>
>>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
>>
>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>

> And you just proved you have less than me.

No.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 2:35 PM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:

>>> I know you may find this difficult to believe, but the BOR applies to our entire system.
>>
>> The Bill of Rights applies to those who are not citizens and who are not
>> yet in our country? Emotionally I agree, practically I don't see how
>> this can be.
>
> Yes, it does apply to all persons who deal with the federal government.

Some non-citizen raghead outside the country who wishes to enter has
*NO* protections or privileges of *ANY* kind under the Bill of Rights.
If he is already present in the country, then he enjoys some...provided
he isn't deported.

Suppose Abdul Ali al-Raghead in Riyadh goes to the American embassy and
applies for a visa to enter the U.S. and is denied because he's a
Muslim. He has *NO* standing to sue in U.S. federal court.

You are the most law-ignorant fuckwit I've ever encountered here.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 2:35 PM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:

> Banning all Muslims is the ultimate in moral cowardice. Sorry if you object, but it's true.

Another stupid shookie personal opinion that he attempts to pass off as
fact. Fuck off, it's not a fact.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

On 12/10/2015 2:42 PM, Steve wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:35:02 -0800 (PST), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:

>>> On 12/10/2015 10:09 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> (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.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>>>

>>>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little. "Class of aliens" isn't decided based on religion. "Muslim" isn't a class of alien.
>>>
>>> Isn't it?
>>
>> No. Look at the law you posted.
>>
>> Oh, yeah, and look at the Constitution. That, too.

>>>
>>>> I know you may find this difficult to believe, but the BOR applies to our entire system.
>>>
>>> The Bill of Rights applies to those who are not citizens and who are not
>>> yet in our country? Emotionally I agree, practically I don't see how
>>> this can be.
>>

>> Yes, it does apply to all persons who deal with the federal government. Ever since the 14th Amendment.
>
> Total Nonsense...
>
> The 14th Amendment most certainly does not apply to non-citizens
> outside of the country... It applies to "any person within its
> jurisdiction."

Exactly right. shookie doesn't know his florid pimply face from his
flabby doughy ass when it comes to the law and the Constitution.

> Remember that Milt Shook incorrectly and stupidly argues
> that the First Amendment, indeed the entire Bill of Rights, protects
> him from non-government individuals and businesses.

Yep, he has said that, and he's absolutely wrong.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

Yes, because there isn't. You made that shit up.

[Stephen Boudreaux, MD]

On 12/10/2015 8:09 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>> [...]
>> (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.
>> [...]
>>
>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>

> It's not constitutional. Not even a little. "Class of aliens" isn't decided based on religion. "Muslim" isn't a class of alien. I know you may find this difficult to believe, but the BOR applies to our entire system.

Don't be such a simpleton. "Class of aliens" might be defined on all
kinds of grounds.

Aliens outside the country have no constitutional rights.

[Stephen Boudreaux, MD]

On 12/10/2015 11:13 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, First Post wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:21:23 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c6bea92f-6553-4d92...@googlegroups.com...

>>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> (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.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>>>
>>>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little.
>>>

>>> You have no credibility. Not even a little.
>>

>> Shook cannot show you in the constitution where it says that America
>> must allow any and all who wish to enter it to do so.
>
> I don't have to. I can show you where the president can't discriminate against anyone based on religion. First Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Aliens outside the United States and who have no legal authority to be
here enjoy no constitutional rights at all.

[Stephen Boudreaux, MD]

On 12/10/2015 2:35 PM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:

>> On 12/10/2015 10:09 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:59:09 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
>>>> [...]
>>>> (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.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> So Trumps suggestion is constitutional, but is it a good idea?
>>>

>>> It's not constitutional. Not even a little. "Class of aliens" isn't decided based on religion. "Muslim" isn't a class of alien.
>>

>> Isn't it?
>
> No. Look at the law you posted.
>
> Oh, yeah, and look at the Constitution. That, too.
>>

>>> I know you may find this difficult to believe, but the BOR applies to our entire system.
>>

>> The Bill of Rights applies to those who are not citizens and who are not
>> yet in our country? Emotionally I agree, practically I don't see how
>> this can be.
>
> Yes, it does apply to all persons who deal with the federal government. Ever since the 14th Amendment.

It does not apply to aliens outside the country with no authorization to
come here but who might wish to come here.