Yawn....As I said in the post you replied to just now... you claim, you prove. If you can't, which you can't, then perhaps we will believe it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Joins Nearly 100 U.S. Firms to File Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Immigration Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wrong.
Civics lesson for you (something in which you should have learned back in 10th grade, but obviously are in dire need of a refresher).
You need to become reacquainted with the concept of rule of law.
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law
In short: every person, every institution, every entity, up to and including the President of the United United States is subject to the Rule of Law. The Constitution, its amendments, and all rules passed under its jurisdiction are paramount and each person is subject to it. The courts have EVERY say in this, as it is their branch, as dictated by the US Constitution that interprets every law and executive order passed with impartiality.
In short, the Courts have the final say. Not you. Not me. Not Congress. Not the POTUS. The Courts.
Again, revisit your civics and political science courses, and rejoin us when you completed your refresher.
EDIT: The Rule of Law is a question that legal residents are asked and are required to know prior to their citizenship swearing. I find it hilarious that immigrants know more about this than natural-born citizens in this country. That should tell you a lot about the status of some people's education in this country (including those participating in this thread).
BL.
Last edited:
Who knows, all I can say is that, as a Canadian I find it all very entertaining.
If Trump can last 4 years without starting a war, he will be better than Obama and Hilary.
The US Constitution has been applied to non-citizens and non-residents, regardless of legal status. That was again, affirmed by SCOTUS on 4 different occasions over the past 150 years.
BL.
Last edited:
There's a preliminary injunction and soon a court order that says "no".
When someone posts and you say "Source", what you really mean is "Liar". It's the new right strategy - just lie. Don't care if someone calls you out on it. Lie, lie, lie, repeat the lies.
Stop, seriously, you look like an idiot defending this. He HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO THIS PER LAW. This is FACT. Not some wishy washy belief of yours.
Good point but that happened long before there was a radical islamic terrorism problem worldwide.
He has the legal authority to use executive orders. No one is denying that fact.
What he is doing with the executive order in banning people from certain countries based on religion or skin colour is against the law and subject to judicial interpretation. That is FACT. Again, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
That is a FACT. It is obvious that you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.
BL.
"No go zones" in Europe are a Trump invention. Check it out. Get yourself informed.
Ever heard of Checks and Balances? The judicial branch is there to interpret the law and they're acting within their rights as granted by the Constitution.
Your claim is that my source is false and Hillary didn't win the popular vote by 2.8M. Where's your proof to back up that claim?
I provided my source. Still waiting for your source to refute that.
Oh, and for your knowledge, I didn't post what he was responding too. But hey, anything to get in and push your agenda, right?
Well, the "Wikleaks guy" is accused. But a UK court agreed that it was rape (if it was true) according to UK law, so he would have been extradited. Of course he would be a free man for the last few years if you hadn't decided to jail himself in the Ecuador embassy...
Provided a third party site....
Boy, that really refutes me
Still waiting.....
You might be right. The best thing to do would be just not let anybody in if people are going to complain and fail to see common sense. Besides, foreigners DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE INTO OUR COUNTRY. WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE IN EVERYBODY THAT WANTS TO COME HERE.
Provided a third party site....
Boy, that really refutes me
You obviously must be new here.
From the FAQ:
Rules:
If you've been called out to back up a claim with a source, you had best back it up, or you may find yourself not here anymore. So, time to put up or shut up. You've been asked to back up your claim; back it up.- Sources. If you claim that something's a fact, back it up with a source. If you can't produce evidence when someone asks you to cite your sources, we may remove your posts. If you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.
BL.
You can't tell that to them, they don't care. They think they know everything, even when they don't. Hell, half of them don't know the President CAN do this and when pointed out and exact law, they STILL deny it. It's like a disease.
We also do not have a Constitutional right to refuse someone based on colour of skin, or religious beliefs. And we most certainly do not have the right to refuse someone who is already a resident or citizen of this country based on religious belief or colour of skin...
.. all of which this ban is doing.
[doublepost=1486414515][/doublepost]
Time to call you out as well.
Provide a source saying that the POTUS can do this based on colour of skin, or religious belief.
BL.