2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I don't think the constitution only applies to citizens, but it doesn't come from the first amendment specifically.

The constitution makes 2 clear restrictions for which citizenship is required: the right to vote and the right to be elected to public office.

Many scholars have deduced from this that, since the framers DID explicitly restrict non-citizens in the manner above, had they intended any of the rest of the constitution to apply only to citizens they would have directly stated so.

And I think that's right.

However, it's not that simple. Over the years the supreme court has upheld otherwise unconstitutional actions against non-citizens several times, including with regard to restrictions on immigration, and including discrimination against specific ethnic groups (famously Japanese people during world war two).

My suspicion is that if laws barring immigration for Muslims were passed, whether it was held up by the supreme court would depend on the scope of the law and the makeup of the court.
This was very informative, thank you.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I don't think the constitution only applies to citizens, but it doesn't come from the first amendment specifically.

The constitution makes 2 clear restrictions for which citizenship is required: the right to vote and the right to be elected to public office.

Many scholars have deduced from this that, since the framers DID explicitly restrict non-citizens in the manner above, had they intended any of the rest of the constitution to apply only to citizens they would have directly stated so.

And I think that's right.

However, it's not that simple. Over the years the supreme court has upheld otherwise unconstitutional actions against non-citizens several times, including with regard to restrictions on immigration, and including discrimination against specific ethnic groups (famously Japanese people during world war two).

My suspicion is that if laws barring immigration for Muslims were passed, whether it was held up by the supreme court would depend on the scope of the law and the makeup of the court.
I assume this would also entail Executive Orders under the auspices of National Security?
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
There was not one anti-war word in his speech. After your last few posts, I can only presume you did not watch the speech and are basing your assumptions around the rhetoric from the 2004 election cycle.

The man did speak pretty movingly of this country's greatness and how proud he is of his son's sacrifice.

Meanwhile, Trump responded with a crack about how his wife probably wasn't allowed to speak. What a small, petty man.
Interesting.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,468
I assume this would also entail Executive Orders under the auspices of National Security?
That's an interesting question, but I'm not sure what you are asking.

Executive orders are not law, they only apply to the executive branch of the government. Immigration is a federal agency so it would fall under executive purview. That said, the president theoretically can't violate the constitution through executive order.

I would guess he could try to issue an executive order to direct immigration to turn away all Muslims, but I'm sure it would get challenged in court anyway, and the same questions would be presented (i.e., do non-citizens have rights under the constitution).

To put it another way, the president couldn't write an executive order that said the FBI can't hire blacks. That would violate the constitution. An executive order concerning immigration should follow the same principle.
 

Angrymesscan

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,796
Doesn't the constitution cover all on US territory?
I'd venture everyone on US soil would be covered by the constitution.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
Doesn't the constitution cover all on US territory?
I'd venture everyone on US soil would be covered by the constitution.
Sort of but we aren't talking about people on American soil. We are talking about people in another country wanting to enter upon our American soil.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
“Okay. For a start, his wife has explained that she chose not to speak because she gets too upset when she sees images of her dead son’s face, you fucking asshole … We may be on the brink of electing such a damaged, sociopathic narcissist that the simple presidential duty of comforting the families of fallen soldiers may actually be beyond his capabilities, and I genuinely did not think that was a part of the job someone could be bad at.”- John Oliver
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
“Okay. For a start, his wife has explained that she chose not to speak because she gets too upset when she sees images of her dead son’s face, you fucking asshole … We may be on the brink of electing such a damaged, sociopathic narcissist that the simple presidential duty of comforting the families of fallen soldiers may actually be beyond his capabilities, and I genuinely did not think that was a part of the job someone could be bad at.”- John Oliver
I feel for these people but Muslims killed their son. The anger at Trump is misdirected. It is a baited trap that Trump doesn't have the good sense to avoid but these folks are being used and that is the real shame.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
I feel for these people but Muslims killed their son. The anger at Trump is misdirected. It is a baited trap that Trump doesn't have the good sense to avoid but these folks are being used and that is the real shame.
They were nothing but a pawn for the Democratic Party. No question about it.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I feel for these people but Muslims killed their son. The anger at Trump is misdirected. It is a baited trap that Trump doesn't have the good sense to avoid but these folks are being used and that is the real shame.
Cpt. Khan was an American, he died fighting in a war for America. While Donald Trump never bothered to read the contitution, Cpt. Khan literally died having sworn to defend it. Trump shit on his religion. Just as you are tacitly shitting on his religion by implying somehow it was to blame for violent insurgency.

Trump isn't to blame for Khan's death, he's just an insult to everything that Khan died for.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
When Dems get endorsements from service families, they are pawns. Okay. :lol

I'm guessing Trump had the Lone Survivor guy because he likes service members who DON'T get killed, okay?
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Cpt. Khan was an American, he died fighting in a war for America. While Donald Trump never bothered to read the contitution, Cpt. Khan literally died having sworn to defend it. Trump shit on his religion. Just as you are tacitly shitting on his religion by implying somehow it was to blame for violent insurgency.

Trump isn't to blame for Khan's death, he's just an insult to everything that Khan died for.
This really isn't hard to understand.

Bonus points for the idea that Trump was easily baited by a supposed cheap political ploy... But he DEFINITELY should be in charge of the Free World.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,730
Trump vows to crack down on internet porn


By Daniel Halper

August 1, 2016 | 9:20am

Donald Trump will crack down on internet pornography if elected president, vowing to appoint a commission to examine its “harmful public health impact.”

News of the promise — which comes as racy photos of his wife, Melania, were obtained by The Post — is part of “The Children’s Internet Safety Presidential Pledge” from the group Enough Is Enough, which Trump signed on July 16.

The anti-porn commitment means he promises to “uphold the rule of law by aggressively enforc[ing] existing federal laws to prevent the sexual exploitation of children online, including the federal obscenity laws, child pornography laws, sexual predation laws and the sex trafficking laws.”

He also pledges to:


“Aggressively enforce the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requiring schools and public libraries using government eRate monies to filter child pornography and pornography by requiring effective oversight by the Federal Communications Commission;

“Protect and defend the innocence of America’s children by advancing public policies that prevent the sexual exploitation of children in a manner that is consistent with the government’s compelling interest in protecting its most vulnerable citizens, within the limits set forth by the First Amendment.”

Hillary Clinton has not signed the anti-porn pledge, citing a policy of not signing pledges, according to the Washington Examiner.

The racy snaps capture 25-year-old Melania Trump — then Melania Knauss — in various stages of mostly undress, and in at least one, in a nude embrace with another woman. The photos were published in a now-defunct French magazine in the 1990s.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller told CNN that the mogul is “a little more focused on the direction of the country and what we need to do to get it turned around.”

“They’re a celebration of the human body as art, and [there’s] nothing to be embarrassed about with the photos. She’s a beautiful woman,” Miller added.
-------

That settles it.

Fuck this guy.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Trump vows to crack down on internet porn


By Daniel Halper

August 1, 2016 | 9:20am

Donald Trump will crack down on internet pornography if elected president, vowing to appoint a commission to examine its “harmful public health impact.”

News of the promise — which comes as racy photos of his wife, Melania, were obtained by The Post — is part of “The Children’s Internet Safety Presidential Pledge” from the group Enough Is Enough, which Trump signed on July 16.

The anti-porn commitment means he promises to “uphold the rule of law by aggressively enforc[ing] existing federal laws to prevent the sexual exploitation of children online, including the federal obscenity laws, child pornography laws, sexual predation laws and the sex trafficking laws.”

He also pledges to:


“Aggressively enforce the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requiring schools and public libraries using government eRate monies to filter child pornography and pornography by requiring effective oversight by the Federal Communications Commission;

“Protect and defend the innocence of America’s children by advancing public policies that prevent the sexual exploitation of children in a manner that is consistent with the government’s compelling interest in protecting its most vulnerable citizens, within the limits set forth by the First Amendment.”

Hillary Clinton has not signed the anti-porn pledge, citing a policy of not signing pledges, according to the Washington Examiner.

The racy snaps capture 25-year-old Melania Trump — then Melania Knauss — in various stages of mostly undress, and in at least one, in a nude embrace with another woman. The photos were published in a now-defunct French magazine in the 1990s.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller told CNN that the mogul is “a little more focused on the direction of the country and what we need to do to get it turned around.”

“They’re a celebration of the human body as art, and [there’s] nothing to be embarrassed about with the photos. She’s a beautiful woman,” Miller added.
-------

That settles it.

Fuck this guy.
Everybody's always talking about the menace of internet porn. Highly topical.

Props to him for coming down hard on this hot button issue.
























Pun(s) intended.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,730
I get the child porn thing...but to use that to reach out beyond, he better back off.

Nothing is more American that good clean ol' internet porn.

Fuck the guns. He can pry YouPorn out of my cold dead hairy palmed hands.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I feel for these people but Muslims killed their son. The anger at Trump is misdirected. It is a baited trap that Trump doesn't have the good sense to avoid but these folks are being used and that is the real shame.
Cpt. Khan was an American, he died fighting in a war for America. While Donald Trump never bothered to read the contitution, Cpt. Khan literally died having sworn to defend it. Trump shit on his religion. Just as you are tacitly shitting on his religion by implying somehow it was to blame for violent insurgency.

Trump isn't to blame for Khan's death, he's just an insult to everything that Khan died for.
How in the hell can you say Trump hasn't read the constitution? Also this whole thing started with the DNC so there would not have been any reason for Trump to try to defend himself otherwise. If you can't see that this whole scheme was laid by the DNC then you are in denial. Trump is guilty of being stupid and not avoiding this debacle but he isn't responsible for it.

For the record who do you blame for Capt. Kahn' s death?
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Has everything gotten so politically correct that saying the word Muslim is shitting on their religion?

There are millions of Americans who are concerned with the circumstance that extreme Muslim factions may attempt to embedd themselves with other Muslims who are trying to enter this country. How is it bigotry to expect our government leaders to initiate a program to try to quell the entry of the extremist coming in with other Muslims or from countries known to house terrorist?

One such proposal is to create a system to screen all individuals who have been identified as possible vehicles for the extremist to utilize for this purpose namely Muslims seeking entry into the country. If this is such a politically incorrect approach then what is a better and more effective way of dealing with what is an undisputed problem?

To label someone a bigot for thinking this is one legitimate approach is as absurd as thinking there isn't a problem in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom