Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bohandas]

Regarding Trump wanting, as president, to punish the families of terrorists, that's explicitly unconstitutional on two seperate and very clear counts, both having to do with the second part of Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

In other words

1.) Congress, not the president, sets the punishment for treason
and
2.) You can't punish the perp's family for it (at least not in any way that would result in loss of property, inheritance, or position)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Would you really want to be taking Trump to court in the 1st place? He'd have way to much fun, waste every bodies time & money, Bog, slowdown, drag out the whole process etc. etc. You'd basically be fighting him on his own territory. You'd have more chance of making him look good then achieving anything.

Depends on the judge. It doesn't take very much to get a contempt of court charged leveled at you for grandstanding and wasting people's time. Then again, Donald strikes me as a chicken shit who talks loud when he knows there's no real consequences for it. He'd probably sit quietly in his chair and let his lawyer do all the talking.

So you think he's not an idiot? That's exactly what you should do in that kind of scenario. And that's the real way you'd drag out a court process, with the accepted obstructionism of an expensive lawyer instead of the usual shtick.

[Bauglir]

... US law explicitly applies to US citizens (and US based businesses, for what that's worth) regardless of where they are. This is why you can bring up people on charges for accepting bribes in some other country, imprison people for sex tourism, and so on. Fairly sure most other countries have similar provisions -- Russian law may not apply to a US citizen in US territory, but it's pretty damn likely it would apply to a russian citizen in US territory.

Ninja'd a little, I think, but still.

this is true and i'm dumb for forgetting it, i should just emphasize that

[Strife26]

Regarding Trump wanting, as president, to punish the families of terrorists, that's explicitly unconstitutional on two seperate and very clear counts, both having to do with the second part of Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

In other words

1.) Congress, not the president, sets the punishment for treason
and
2.) You can't punish the perp's family for it (at least not in any way that would result in loss of property, inheritance, or position)

Treason is the only crime specifically listed in the Constitution, and it'd be a stretch to include most terrorism in it.

[Morrigi]

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

That someone could hypothetically claim that President Trump is responsible for some extra  territorial possession, or maybe qualifies as a government official for whatever country us troops are occupying, then deny him entry into the country on the grounds that denying people entry to the on the grounds of religion is illegal?

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it, although I'm pretty sure that he could finagle through with executive actions.

No, that Trump's suggestion of banning all Muslims from entering the country is technically legal.

I assume you're referring to

(F) Association with terrorist organizations

Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

This does NOT make it legal to bar all Muslims from entry. It allows the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to, on an individual basis deny the entry of a terrorist affiliate if they believe that that affiliate is going to pose a danger.

(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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

[RedKing]

So this puts the onus on commercial airlines to submit all passengers to the US to a religious test, or else the Attorney General could bar ALL foreign passengers from entering via that airline? Good luck with that, Fortress Ameritrump.

I'm not sure how you document someone's religious affiliation (other than a Nazi-like ID card, which you're not going to be able to issue to non-Americans anyways). The whole scheme is unworkable and asinine.

It also still doesn't make it legal to bar US citizens who are Muslims from travelling in and out of the country.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So this puts the onus on commercial airlines to submit all passengers to the US to a religious test, or else the Attorney General could bar ALL foreign passengers from entering via that airline? Good luck with that, Fortress Ameritrump.

I'm not sure how you document someone's religious affiliation (other than a Nazi-like ID card, which you're not going to be able to issue to non-Americans anyways). The whole scheme is unworkable and asinine.

It also still doesn't make it legal to bar US citizens who are Muslims from travelling in and out of the country.

inb4 Delta gets even shittier because you have to do a shot of pig blood to get on the plane

[Strife26]

The whole scheme is unworkable and asinine.

  _{It's actually a metaphor for his entire candidacy.}

[Bauglir]

inb4 Delta gets even shittier because you have to do a shot of pig blood to get on the plane

but that'd keep out the jews, and his constituency loves israel

[smjjames]

So this puts the onus on commercial airlines to submit all passengers to the US to a religious test, or else the Attorney General could bar ALL foreign passengers from entering via that airline? Good luck with that, Fortress Ameritrump.

I'm not sure how you document someone's religious affiliation (other than a Nazi-like ID card, which you're not going to be able to issue to non-Americans anyways). The whole scheme is unworkable and asinine.

It also still doesn't make it legal to bar US citizens who are Muslims from travelling in and out of the country.

Yeah, the entire idea is just completely unworkable.

And Americans won't and shouldn't accept an ID card thing for religious affiliation.

[wobbly]

Yeah, nothing he says is particularly workable or practical but what's to say he'd actually stick to anything he's said in the unlikely tragedy of him being elected? Doesn't strike me as the kind of person to actually stick to any promises. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have any real plans for what he's going to do that didn't involve whiskey or cigars.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

inb4 Delta gets even shittier because you have to do a shot of pig blood to get on the plane

but that'd keep out the jews, and his constituency loves israel

It's that kind of "ew don't touch me you freak" love.

[smjjames]

Yeah, nothing he says is particularly workable or practical but what's to say he'd actually stick to anything he's said in the unlikely tragedy of him being elected? Doesn't strike me as the kind of person to actually stick to any promises. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have any real plans for what he's going to do that didn't involve whiskey or cigars.

That's actually pretty normal for a politician to not stick to all of the promises they made during the campaign. I mean, name a politician that stuck to 100% of everything they said they would promise to do during the campaign. True, the promises might get derailed because of other factors and not entirely the politicians fault, but still.

The thing though is Trumps semi-unpredictability, maybe he'll actually do that, maybe he won't, we don't have a voting record to compare and contrast with.

Despite being a little hypocritical because of the Palestinian issue, Netanyhu is at least speaking some sense. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/netanyahu-trump-muslims-216602  Also, Israels version of Congress/Parliament is considering barring Trump from speaking at their place. Or rather, some of them were calling for a vote on that.

[RedKing]

And Americans won't and shouldn't accept an ID card thing for religious affiliation.

ftfy

Polls indicate a significant amount of support for Trump's plan. And a lot of people would be fine with requiring "those people" to abide by restrictions or obligations that don't apply to themselves.

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell," South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday.

You gotta give it to Graham....he may be in last place, but at least he's being honest.

I really hope at this point that Trump gets the nom, because I think it will crack the GOP into the portion that is genuinely conservative (and which cannot bring themselves to support Trump, even if it means electing Clinton) and the portion composed of the creeping cancer of reactionary populism that's been infecting the party for the last 20-30 years and which will happily goose-step for Trump. Then maybe the genuinely conservative faction can reform a legitimate Republican Party worth voting for.

[Bohandas]

Regarding Trump wanting, as president, to punish the families of terrorists, that's explicitly unconstitutional on two seperate and very clear counts, both having to do with the second part of Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

In other words

1.) Congress, not the president, sets the punishment for treason
and
2.) You can't punish the perp's family for it (at least not in any way that would result in loss of property, inheritance, or position)

Treason is the only crime specifically listed in the Constitution, and it'd be a stretch to include most terrorism in it.

Well I think it probably counts if they've pledged allegiance to ISIS or Al Qaeda