You can't overrule a Cons utional right by law. An EO has the same force as a law. That makes the law/EO 'uncons utional'.
It's amending the Cons ution or nothing.
Well, you know how this works. He issues the EO, order gets stayed, goes through the courts, dismissed as uncons utional. The whole point of Amendments is that not even a SCOTUS majority can overrule them.
I know, unless the executive departments begin defying court orders...
They could, but it would be, at worst, temporary. Plus it would be a giant dump on democracy and the Cons ution.
Then again, maybe they can use it to flare up potential support for an amendment. The numbers are not there right now though.
Fake news as usual
If the SCOTUS majority swells to 6-3 GOP, they won't dismiss it as uncons utional
Which opens up its own can of worms. Trump doesn't have the full support of his party and the Dems are united against him. He does something impeachable I can see the GOP thinking that the remainder of the term with Pence would be a much better thing.
This just your reflexive response when you read something you don't like?
It's from your echo chamber so you cannot cry liberal media either.
It's fun watching the left go absolutely bat crazy.
The above is 'crazy' to you? It reads to me like a political discussion.
You sure are desperate from some schadenfreude aren't you, e-cripple?
It's a MUSLIM BAN
... except where BigCorp profits would be impacted
Go with bigger font. And make it red, like HuffPo. Really drives the point home.
‘Why let ’em in?’ Understanding Bannon’s worldview and the policies that follow.
In November 2015, Stephen K. Bannon — then the executive chairman of Breitbart News — was hosting a satellite radio show. His guest was Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), who opposed President Obama’s plan to resettle some Syrian refugees in the United States.
“We need to put a stop on refugees until we can vet,” Zinke said.
Bannon cut him off.
“Why even let ’em in?” he asked.
Bannon said that vetting refugees from Muslim-majority countries would cost money and time. “Can’t that money be used in the United States?” he said. “Should we just take a pause and a hiatus for a number of years on any influx from that area of the world?”
In the years before Bannon grabbed the world’s attention as President Trump’s chief White House strategist, he was developing and articulating a fiery populist vision for remaking the United States and its role in the world.
Bannon’s past statements, aired primarily on Breitbart and other conservative platforms, serve as a road map for the controversial agenda that has roiled Washington and shaken the global order during Trump’s first two weeks in office.
That worldview, which Bannon laid out in interviews and speeches over the past several years, hinges largely on Bannon’s belief in American “sovereignty.” Bannon said that countries should protect their citizens and their essence by reducing immigration, legal and illegal, and pulling back from multinational agreements.
At Breitbart, Bannon cemented his role as a champion of the alt-right, the anti-globalism movement that has attracted support from white supremacists and found a home on the far-right website.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...t-draw7&wpmm=1
Maybe Bannon is a Pootin BoyToy, too, since Pootin and his empire building would LOVE America to break all its multi-national agreements and turn into fortress America, letting Pootin hack, subvert, befriend former American allies everywhere.
Fake story
I don't know why Saudi Arabia wasn't included, tbh, they have some of the worst and scariest Sunni jihadists in the entire world including those who perpetrated 9/11 as well as being Bin Laden's birthplace and money ground.
This is why:
They wouldn't have been able to make this deal if Saudi Arabia was included.
Disagree. The safe zones was basically proposed by Saudi as it provides "safe zones" for their jihadi legions. They are the ones who would benefit more..
Obviously Sauds were not included because many of them own banks and corporations in US. Only insignificant 3rd world countries were included to basically make Trump lemmings happy. Cross the task as done. Iran was most likely included at the behest of Israel and Suaud
This ban has nothing to do with security but everything to do with pleasing the base and Israel/Saud
Lol
So Trump is no different from Hillary, Billy and Obama. In bed with the terrorists for the benefit of more money. Buzzkill.
Damn straight. Trump continues the alliance with Sunnism/ISIS so we don't have to drill more domestically and/or pay more abroad. He's just like the others. Buzzkill.
Bro the right elected Donald Trump, you guys still have scoreboard on bat crazy.
A rational take
Despite continuing protests and legal challenges, just over half of voters favor President Trump's temporary refugee ban, although there's a lot less concern about the threat of domestic Islamic terrorism.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a ban that keeps refugees from all countries from entering the United States for the next four months until there is a better system in place to keep out individuals who are terrorist threats. Forty-three percent (43%) are opposed.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...refugee_freeze
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
