|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
How many times do I need to stay that the EO violates a law put in place by congress in 1965? I understand that due process under Constitution is the argument you would prefer to make, but that isn’t happening here.
|
On May 10 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:07 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws. I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act? You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you. When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen. The Trump executive order I was talking about did not revoke any visas. Except in implementation it did revoke visa and greencards. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-orderSo I am being charitable in assuming you do not understand the full scope and reach of the EO?
Nope, the article refers to a different executive order which I am not discussing. I'm talking about the one before the 4th circuit court of appeals right now.
|
On May 10 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:07 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws. I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act? You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you. When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen. The Trump executive order I was talking about did not revoke any visas. Except in implementation it did revoke visa and greencards. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-orderSo I am being charitable in assuming you do not understand the full scope and reach of the EO? Nope, the article refers to a different executive order which I am not discussing. I'm talking about the one before the 4th circuit court of appeals right now.
So what your argument is that because the new order was stayed before implementation, no visas will be revoked due to the order? Or more importantly, no one can prove it because it hasn’t happened yet. I’m not really sure that is compelling evidence, since the same people will be implementing the order and I’ve seen no language that says it will not revoke visas.
|
Canada11517 Posts
@GH
I don't really think that's a fair reading of the Declaration. I think it's quite clear that "all men are created equal" was intended as a foundation for a slow and gradual change. The southern founders knew the impact of that phrase as they tried to change it to "freemen". I think it's clear that phrase was intended to be foundational for all peoples if not immediately, then eventually. Certainly, the Founders didn't fight for abolition in the same way we would have hoped. But considering they were just overthrowing an oppressive government, there was some caution in using the power of the state to directly free the slaves rather than try to shut it down indirectly (though unsuccessfully). John Adams hoped to shut it down gradually for instance.
|
On May 10 2017 04:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:07 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These long conversations about stuff like how horrible it is that Trump's EO was stopped "because the constitution" reminds me how little they have to say about the every day Americans having their constitutional rights violated on a regular basis by state sanctioned thugs.
It means I don't believe that they actually care about the law from the sense of righteous justice, but merely because it bolsters their argument. Otherwise they would be less incensed by something like the EO's than they would people's constitutional rights being violated regularly and them often losing their freedom, future, and sometimes their lives as a result of those egregious and habitual violations. The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws. I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act? You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you. When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen. The Trump executive order I was talking about did not revoke any visas. Except in implementation it did revoke visa and greencards. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-orderSo I am being charitable in assuming you do not understand the full scope and reach of the EO? Nope, the article refers to a different executive order which I am not discussing. I'm talking about the one before the 4th circuit court of appeals right now. So what your argument is that because the new order was stayed before implementation, no visas will be revoked due to the order? Or more importantly, no one can prove it because it hasn’t happened yet. I’m not really sure that is compelling evidence, since the same people will be implementing the order and I’ve seen no language that says it will not revoke visas.
The plain text of the revised order makes clear it only applies to the issuance of new visas. It contrasts heavily with the first order's ambiguity of application. But read any news report or the plain text of the EO.
|
On May 10 2017 02:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 Doodsmack wrote:
I can see the argument that the text of the order as written does not have the same effect as "ban the Muslims". But it does have the effect of "ban some Muslims". The promise of ban the Muslims was just so clear and simple and prominent that there's barely any room for interpretation. He can invent an alternative explanation of "national security and foreign policy" all he wants, but there's also the "ban some Muslims" explanation - and that's where the judicial comes in. At some point a campaign promise is prominent enough and has a direct enough link to the EO that you can't help but interpret it as the purpose of the EO. Hey, I think we have a believer in reading the text to ascertain whether or not it in-effect bans the Muslims based on their religion rather than pausing immigration from terror-prone nations for a specified period of time. How do you feel about the Alabama felon disenfranchisement law? As written it disenfranchises anyone, regardless of race, who is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude but it was written by an all white convention with the stated purpose of stripping the franchise from the black population by exploiting their de facto control of the legal system to purposefully direct their racially neutral law specifically at the black people. And they said that's what they were going to do. And then they did it. Constitutional?
It would be nice if those laws were struck down though, there is a lot in the southern states that is about recreating slavery after losing the civil war.
|
After listening to the arguments, frankly the US government's arguments are much stronger. Almost nothing the ACLU attorney said was convincing; though that could be because he was shockingly horrible and seemed embarrassingly unprepared (much to my surprise for a Skadden Fellow and ACLU attorney). Best arguments in favor of stopping the EO are made by the judges when questioning the solicitor general, but ultimately they are still shakey and don't seem we'll founded legally.
|
On May 10 2017 05:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 04:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:07 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The part that is most annoying is people making the argument that people with visas are not entitle to due process. Even thought we passed laws saying they are entitled to due process almost 50 years ago. Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws. I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act? You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you. When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen. The Trump executive order I was talking about did not revoke any visas. Except in implementation it did revoke visa and greencards. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-orderSo I am being charitable in assuming you do not understand the full scope and reach of the EO? Nope, the article refers to a different executive order which I am not discussing. I'm talking about the one before the 4th circuit court of appeals right now. So what your argument is that because the new order was stayed before implementation, no visas will be revoked due to the order? Or more importantly, no one can prove it because it hasn’t happened yet. I’m not really sure that is compelling evidence, since the same people will be implementing the order and I’ve seen no language that says it will not revoke visas. The plain text of the revised order makes clear it only applies to the issuance of new visas. It contrasts heavily with the first order's ambiguity of application. But read any news report or the plain text of the EO.
If someone tries to travel from a banned country on a previously issued visa, what happens? Are they allowed to enter the country? If not, are they told when they can enter? What happens to their Visa?
|
On May 10 2017 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 05:06 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:07 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:52 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 03:39 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Constitutional due process absolutely does not apply to noncitizens with no inherent right to be here. Now, if you bring to me a law outlining the procedure, a judge may rule that the law was misapplied respecting visas, but that's not an unconstitutional argument--which due process typically refers to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Again, we already have laws addressing this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38766364Cair is also arguing that Mr Trump's order violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a government action can't be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "unsupported by substantial evidence". It's a particular provision that has been used to strike down past executive actions by President George W Bush and Mr Obama. There are plenty of ways to challenge this order not being based on sound evidence and that is conflicts with existing laws. I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act? You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you. When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen. The Trump executive order I was talking about did not revoke any visas. Except in implementation it did revoke visa and greencards. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-orderSo I am being charitable in assuming you do not understand the full scope and reach of the EO? Nope, the article refers to a different executive order which I am not discussing. I'm talking about the one before the 4th circuit court of appeals right now. So what your argument is that because the new order was stayed before implementation, no visas will be revoked due to the order? Or more importantly, no one can prove it because it hasn’t happened yet. I’m not really sure that is compelling evidence, since the same people will be implementing the order and I’ve seen no language that says it will not revoke visas. The plain text of the revised order makes clear it only applies to the issuance of new visas. It contrasts heavily with the first order's ambiguity of application. But read any news report or the plain text of the EO. If someone tries to travel from a banned country on a previously issued visa, what happens? Are they allowed to enter the country? If not, are they told when they can enter? What happens to their Visa?
Banned country lol. The plain text specifically exempts lawful permanent residents and current visa holders. Just because outlets like to use the word "ban" doesn't mean the traditional use of the word bears any meaning on the executive order. If you have other elementary questions on issues fully addressed and unambiguously addressed, I will direct your attention to the dozens of articles already written that sum it up, or read the executive order.
|
United States43989 Posts
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters?
|
On May 10 2017 05:05 Falling wrote:
@GH
I don't really think that's a fair reading of the Declaration. I think it's quite clear that "all men are created equal" was intended as a foundation for a slow and gradual change. The southern founders knew the impact of that phrase as they tried to change it to "freemen". I think it's clear that phrase was intended to be foundational for all peoples if not immediately, then eventually. Certainly, the Founders didn't fight for abolition in the same way we would have hoped. But considering they were just overthrowing an oppressive government, there was some caution in using the power of the state to directly free the slaves rather than try to shut it down indirectly (though unsuccessfully). John Adams hoped to shut it down gradually for instance.
I'm not sure what you're saying was unfair? Are you making the argument that some of the founders did think it should apply to all men but basically the country (and their bottom lines) weren't ready for it? That's fine. I mean it took a loooooooong time just to secure the right to vote for non-white, non-Christian women and men. America operated for almost 100 years (like everyone around during the founding died, and most of their children, and their children), before they decided black people should nominally have the right to vote, 130+ to give it to women, and almost 200 years or ~80% of the history of our country before they secured the rights for black people to vote in The South (sorta). So sure, I don't disagree that there were different perspectives on the intended scope and timeline (to little matter at the time)
The thrust of my argument is that if one gave a rats ass about the justice the law is supposed to herald as opposed to the strict self-serving literal interpretation/application they'd be more concerned about the people who were prevented from even their most basic necessity in a just Government as described in our Declaration, their consent.
America told Black people in the south for 200+years or the overwhelming majority of the history off this country, that they don't deserve the agency to consent. There lay the parallel to the argument Danglers is making.
From the founders to today there are people arguing that it's not white supremacy that motivates them to deny people their most basic human rights (like access to justice), but merely a fidelity to and reverence for "the law". I'm suggesting that it's pretty plain for the reasons I've mentioned that it is simply not true. That fidelity and reverence is limited to the laws that serve their agendas so long as they are also exercised within their acceptable parameters.
When it comes to the laws that are supposed to protect the people they deem unworthy of such protection being violated regularly by the government thugs they claim to fear getting out of control, they can't be bothered or suggest that the habitual denial of their rights hardly rises to a significant and pressing issue.
It's a racist argument borne in white supremacy.
|
On May 10 2017 05:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 05:13 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 05:06 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:32 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 04:07 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:I'm going to try to be charitable here. Can you admit that when you say "visas are not entitle[sic] to due process," a reasonable person might conclude you mean the due process cause of the constitution, and not the administrative procedure act? You should be charitable considering how charitable people in this thread are with you. When I said a 1965 law passed by a congress requiring due process to revoke a visa, I felt I was pretty clear. If you need it spelled out, the rights are given to the visa holder by the law passed by congress. They are not innate rights like I have due to being a US citizen. The Trump executive order I was talking about did not revoke any visas. Except in implementation it did revoke visa and greencards. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513306413/state-department-says-fewer-than-60-000-visas-revoked-under-travel-orderSo I am being charitable in assuming you do not understand the full scope and reach of the EO? Nope, the article refers to a different executive order which I am not discussing. I'm talking about the one before the 4th circuit court of appeals right now. So what your argument is that because the new order was stayed before implementation, no visas will be revoked due to the order? Or more importantly, no one can prove it because it hasn’t happened yet. I’m not really sure that is compelling evidence, since the same people will be implementing the order and I’ve seen no language that says it will not revoke visas. The plain text of the revised order makes clear it only applies to the issuance of new visas. It contrasts heavily with the first order's ambiguity of application. But read any news report or the plain text of the EO. If someone tries to travel from a banned country on a previously issued visa, what happens? Are they allowed to enter the country? If not, are they told when they can enter? What happens to their Visa? Banned country lol. The plain text specifically exempts lawful permanent residents and current visa holders. Just because outlets like to use the word "ban" doesn't mean the traditional use of the word bears any meaning on the executive order. If you have other elementary questions on issues fully addressed and unambiguously addressed, I will direct your attention to the dozens of articles already written that sum it up, or read the executive order.
I read the order twice and it did not appear to be as clear as you make it, but I will concede that point. I’m not convinced that the order would be enforced that way considering how aggressive immigration officials were last time, but that is not the topic at hand.
I still do not see how the law overcomes the Administrative Procedure Act requiring there to be evidence that an executive order was necessary and this issue couldn’t have been addressed by congress. There was not pressing emergency beyond Trumps need to make good on his election promises, which is specifically what the Administrative Procedure Act is designed to prevent.
|
The NPR story about affordable housing tax credit program being abused is pretty interesting, not sure if it is available online yet though
|
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/09/527046451/affordable-housing-program-costs-more-shelters-less
This is another case of the government pulling back from overseeing how public services are provided and relying on the private sector. 30 years later, it is a for booming profit industry based on government dollars and made on the backs of the poor.
Just like student loans, mortgages, prisons, charter schools. Why govern and constantly fight for tax dollars when you can create some private/public nightmare that goes out of control when Congress drops the ball?
|
With regards to this whole discussion about visa rights and travelling, I thought that thanks to Bush II as long as you are in an airport you have no rights and they can take everything from you that they like or send you back for any reason? The constitutions with regards to reasonable searches or seizure doesn't apply, etc
|
On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters?
No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly.
|
On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly.
There's not very much interpretation being done on Trump's statements though. What else could he have meant by calling for a complete and total shutdown on Muslims entering the country?
|
United States43989 Posts
On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly.
Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about?
|
|
|
On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about?
I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
