I know, I know.  I'm beating a dead horse with you.  But I still think you don't fully get it.  So here's the portion of the Constitution I think Mr. Khan was referring to.  You think it's a clear cut thing.  But as I have said, which you seem to ignore, is that the Constitutionality of this issue has never been fully played out.  Denying access into the USA because of your religion is basically denying liberty and due process under our laws if you are targeting a specific class of people.  So, again, you may think it's clear cut.  It's not.

 

What is clear cut is that trump clearly has no true thought process on this other than to denegrate an entire group of people.  It's what he does best and what his supporters like about him.  But it's clearly not something that speaks to the ideals and aspirations of our country.

 

 

 
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/size]

That's the perfect portion of the constitution to highlight. It shows you WHO is covered under our constitution. Notice it doesn't include people seeking to enter our country. Barring anyone from entering the United States for ANY reason is not denying liberty or due process under our laws because they were never covered by our laws in the first place. It's really not as hard to understand as you are trying to make it out to be.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

That's the perfect portion of the constitution to highlight. It shows you WHO is covered under our constitution. Notice it doesn't include people seeking to enter our country. Barring anyone from entering the United States for ANY reason is not denying liberty or due process under our laws because they were never covered by our laws in the first place. It's really not as hard to understand as you are trying to make it out to be.

 

Constitutional lawyers agree with you.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/0...-be-legal/

 

That darn obtrusive document always getting in the way of ambitious lefty dreams.

---

That's the perfect portion of the constitution to highlight. It shows you WHO is covered under our constitution. Notice it doesn't include people seeking to enter our country. Barring anyone from entering the United States for ANY reason is not denying liberty or due process under our laws because they were never covered by our laws in the first place. It's really not as hard to understand as you are trying to make it out to be.

 

LOL...  Uh...  You gotta read the entire thing, Bunnie...  CONTEXT....  

 

Persons that come under the jurisdiction of a state or the federal government, for that matter, have rights of due process...  At least it can be argued as such.  

 

It is that complicated.  You cannot pick and choose parts of a law.  You must review the entire thing...

---

Constitutional lawyers agree with you.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/0...-be-legal/

 

That darn obtrusive document always getting in the way of ambitious lefty dreams.

 

And on the opossing side:

 

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/...-be-valid/

 

Again, it's not clear cut.  And it's clearly anti-American.  

---

And it's clearly anti-American.  

 

You are clearly incorrect.

 

Also from your artcile,

 

"But who would have a right, or the opportunity, to challenge such a ban, assuming that it would be imposed?   No one has a constitutional right to enter the country; that is clear. It probably would require, then, that some Muslims who had already entered the country as refugees – such as the thousands that the Obama administration has been admitting – could make a case that they have a personal stake in remaining, and the only reason for sending them away would be the discriminatory view of their religious faith. And perhaps some refugee service organization that has worked with Muslim refugees could come forward to speak for them in court."

---

You are clearly incorrect.

 

 

LOL, Oh am I?  Is it clear?   :teehee:

 

By the way, here's another article, this ones a really good read as well:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015...titutional

---

LOL, Oh am I?  Is it clear?   :teehee:

 

By the way, here's another article, this ones a really good read as well:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015...titutional

 


"That historical deference to the political branches, says Volokh, a First Amendment expert, suggests “from a constitutional perspective, it may well be that Muslims could be excluded, just like people could be excluded based on their speech and political opinions, and historically their race."

 



He cautions "those cases are pretty old, so it’s not clear what the Supreme Court today would authorize.” Applying a travel ban to returning U.S. citizens who are Muslims would clearly be unconstitutional, he says, and Trump’s idea likely would require an act of Congress.


 

Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, says it's unclear if courts would strike down a ban on Muslim immigrants."


 

In other words, they have no idea, it has historical precedence, and it would only apply to Muslims that were already citizens.

---

 

<div>
"That historical deference to the political branches, says Volokh, a First Amendment expert, suggests “from a constitutional perspective, it may well be that Muslims could be excluded, just like people could be excluded based on their speech and political opinions, and historically their race."

 



He cautions "those cases are pretty old, so it’s not clear what the Supreme Court today would authorize.” Applying a travel ban to returning U.S. citizens who are Muslims would clearly be unconstitutional, he says, and Trump’s idea likely would require an act of Congress.


 

Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, says it's unclear if courts would strike down a ban on Muslim immigrants."


 

In other words, they have no idea, it has historical precedence, and it would only apply to Muslims that were already citizens.

 

</div>

 

THAT's what I've been saying!  I'm glad we are in agreement!  Thank you! 

 

As I said, I could see a very good case that would strike down the ban as un-Constitutional.  Of course trump supporters would see it the other way.  But it's not clear cut, as you have seen for yourself.  I knew there was a reason I liked you, JW.

 

Now will you get Bunnie on board please?

---

THAT's what I've been saying!  I'm glad we are in agreement!  Thank you! 

 

As I said, I could see a very good case that would strike down the ban as un-Constitutional.  Of course trump supporters would see it the other way.  But it's not clear cut, as you have seen for yourself.  I knew there was a reason I liked you, JW.

 

Now will you get Bunnie on board please?

 

Are you confused? The people in your article had no idea. Plenty others did. Trump's nation ban is constitutional. There is also nothing unconstitutional about banning immigration of any race, religion, nationality, or political preference, so his Muslim ban is also constitutional The constitution only applies if you are a citizen or are currently on U.S. soil. Bunnie has been echoing this exact sentiment, but for some reason you are having difficulty comprehending it.

---

LOL...  Uh...  You gotta read the entire thing, Bunnie...  CONTEXT....  

 

Persons that come under the jurisdiction of a state or the federal government, for that matter, have rights of due process...  At least it can be argued as such.  

 

It is that complicated.  You cannot pick and choose parts of a law.  You must review the entire thing...

I've read the entire thing. You might want to go back and read it again, without skipping over the big words this time, because you seem to be the one having issues with context. The law covers persons WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. Our jurisdiction stops at the territorial borders of the United States, anyone on the OTHER side of that border isn't in our jurisdiction and therefore not covered by our laws.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Are you confused? The people in your article had no idea. Plenty others did. Trump's nation ban is constitutional. There is also nothing unconstitutional about banning immigration of any race, religion, nationality, or political preference, so his Muslim ban is also constitutional The constitution only applies if you are a citizen or are currently on U.S. soil. Bunnie has been echoing this exact sentiment, but for some reason you are having difficulty comprehending it.

The only ban that will work is to eliminate immigration all together. But then that will have a significant financial damage.


What's UF's international enrollment? Those lost revenues are coming from somewhere.

---

Are you confused? The people in your article had no idea. Plenty others did. Trump's nation ban is constitutional. There is also nothing unconstitutional about banning immigration of any race, religion, nationality, or political preference, so his Muslim ban is also constitutional The constitution only applies if you are a citizen or are currently on U.S. soil. Bunnie has been echoing this exact sentiment, but for some reason you are having difficulty comprehending it.

Lol, oh dear. It appears that you are reverting....


You know how our rule of law works, right?


A thing cannot be found constitutional until it is ruled upon by the supreme court.


The case can be made, as my articles point out that it is UN constitutional, however there are cases that show it could go the other way.


The argument is not clear cut. And as a Harvard law professor states it is UN American and potentially UN constitutional.


Jurisdiction requires due process. It can be argued by banning an entire class, you are imposing jurisdiction over that class without due process.

---

Just so we're straight, here, Bunnie and JW:

 

If David Duke were elected president, there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from banning Black people from entering the U.S.?  Not the 1st, 13th, or 14th amendments?

 

There's nothing to stop him from banning homosexuals, women, Buddhists, Mexicans of all races, people who speak only Norwegian?

 

Do you guys REALLY think that would pass a Supreme Court test?  I don't.

---

Just so we're straight, here, Bunnie and JW:

 

If David Duke were elected president, there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from banning Black people from entering the U.S.?  Not the 1st, 13th, or 14th amendments?

 

There's nothing to stop him from banning homosexuals, women, Buddhists, Mexicans of all races, people who speak only Norwegian?

 

Do you guys REALLY think that would pass a Supreme Court test?  I don't.

 

---

 

After reading your posts in this forum, I'll just have to go Donald on ya:

 

I know you are, but what am I?

---

What's UF's international enrollment? Those lost revenues are coming from somewhere.

 

You mean UF might have to lower their already bloated educational costs and enroll Americans?

 

What horror!

---

Just so we're straight, here, Bunnie and JW:

 

If David Duke were elected president, there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from banning Black people from entering the U.S.?  Not the 1st, 13th, or 14th amendments?

 

There's nothing to stop him from banning homosexuals, women, Buddhists, Mexicans of all races, people who speak only Norwegian?

 

Do you guys REALLY think that would pass a Supreme Court test?  I don't.

Whether or not it eventually makes it past the Supreme Court is not the issue. As of RIGHT NOW, there is nothing in the constitution preventing any president from banning anyone entry into our country. Using a racist dirtbag as an example doesn't change that fact.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Whether or not it eventually makes it past the Supreme Court is not the issue. As of RIGHT NOW, there is nothing in the constitution preventing any president from banning anyone entry into our country. Using a racist dirtbag as an example doesn't change that fact.

Which racist scum bag are you referring to? Trump?


And, I'm sorry to tell you this, but just because a hypothetical law hasn't been ruled upon doesn't make it constitutional!! That's terrible logic! There was a time when segregating blacks was allowed, was it constitutional just because the ruling of brown v board of education hadn't been ruled yet? No. It was legal under our laws, but it wasn't constitutional.


Jurisdiction dictates that the power of the government can be imposed upon a person. Under our laws and constitution, due process is afforded to those which fall within said jurisdiction--this includes citizens and non citizens alike.


As a class, one would look at the hypothetical of banning all blacks from entering this country, and clearly would see this as unconstitutional...


However, when it comes to Muslims, it becomes more difficult for some people. Trump is playing off this fear and bigotry to garner votes. That's the definition of being a scum bag.

---

Which racist scum bag are you referring to? Trump?


And, I'm sorry to tell you this, but just because a hypothetical law hasn't been ruled upon doesn't make it constitutional!! That's terrible logic! There was a time when segregating blacks was allowed, was it constitutional just because the ruling of brown v board of education hadn't been ruled yet? No. It was legal under our laws, but it wasn't constitutional.


Jurisdiction dictates that the power of the government can be imposed upon a person. Under our laws and constitution, due process is afforded to those which fall within said jurisdiction--this includes citizens and non citizens alike.


As a class, one would look at the hypothetical of banning all blacks from entering this country, and clearly would see this as unconstitutional...


However, when it comes to Muslims, it becomes more difficult for some people. Trump is playing off this fear and bigotry to garner votes. That's the definition of being a scum bag.

 

 

Pretty sure she is talking about David Duke, and I'm pretty sure you knew that already, but nothing that small will ever stop you from trollin', right?

---

Pretty sure she is talking about David Duke, and I'm pretty sure you knew that already, but nothing that small will ever stop you from trollin', right?

Lol, what you call trolling, I call wit!


Besides, I'm putting thought into my arguments and am trying to have an honest conversation.


You can call me obsessive, incessant, annoying, etc... But I'm not sure I fit the description of a troll.

---