Trump Thread Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
The exact wording is:
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. *
What you wrote was a mash-up of the two clauses. But the two clauses address two different issues, and both of them are important. The first clause prevents the Congress from establishing a state religion, or making laws that treat one religion differently from another. The second clause prevents Congress from passing laws that interfere with the citizens’ exercise of their freedom of religion.

It is the first clause that most directly affects the proposed ban on Muslims. Such a law would respect non-Muslim religions, or even atheism, as superior. There is no way the courts will ever allow that, whatever private interpretation of the Constitution you may have.

That said, this whole discussion is moot, since Trump is no longer talking about banning Muslim immigration, so it doesn’t really matter what we think is constitutional on this issue.
Click to expand...
It’s not a private interpretation of mine it is a fact. immigration laws are set by congress. Since non americans not living in this country legally have no constitutional right what so ever.
the issue isnt religion, its immigration. Again youre just wrong and unwilling to admit it. We have banned people from a muslim country in the past and the courts allowed it. Trump would have have to name each and every country in which he want to ban immigration. In the end he would be right to do so. Mr Khan is a liberal hack and operative and makes money from immigration from those countries. Trump owes the man nothing what so ever. As Trump didnt insult the man loss of his son.
 
nationalreview.com/corner/438615/continuing-khizr-khan-controversy

Three thoughts: 1) It would have long ago died down if not for Donald Trump’s attacks on the family. 2) One positive consequence of the controversy is that it led Susan Kristol to write this thoughtful article about, among other things, being a Blue Star Mother. 3) I think a number of people, including Kristol, are misinterpreting a line in Khan’s speech. Khan, addressing Trump rhetorically, said, “You have sacrificed nothing and no one.” Some commentators have noted that Hillary Clinton hasn’t sacrificed any more than Trump has; Kristol points out that “of course we don’t require our leaders to have lost children in battle, or even to have served in the armed forces themselves.” But I don’t think Khan meant this line to compare Trump to Clinton; I think he was comparing Trump to Khan’s family, and to his dead son. The idea was, I think: You denigrate American Muslims as a group; that includes our family; and given what we’ve done for our country and what you have, how dare you. I’m sympathetic to this point of view. But whether or not you are, that’s what I think he was trying to say.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/438615/continuing-khizr-khan-controversy

The above is a quote from National Review. I’m posting from my phone so for some reason I can’t use the quote box.

I tend to agree with this.
 
philipl said:
It’s not a private interpretation of mine it is a fact. immigration laws are set by congress. Since non americans not living in this country legally have no constitutional right what so ever.
the issue isnt religion, its immigration.
Click to expand...
Exactly! That is why there should not be a religious test for immigrants.
Again youre just wrong and unwilling to admit it. We have banned people from a muslim country in the past and the courts allowed it.
Click to expand...
Yes, because the criteria was the country they were from. It was not a religious test. It was the country they were from.
Trump would have have to name each and every country in which he want to ban immigration. In the end he would be right to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be legal. Although whether he was “right to do so” is debatable.

However what he could not do is name a country that has people of several religions and only allow those of a specific religion from that country. That would violate the 1st amendment.
Mr Khan is a liberal hack and operative and makes money from immigration from those countries.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, when all else fails, give the guy a label and avoid the issues! As for making money, that is perfectly legal. And given the complexities of our immigration law, many people need lawyers to navigate it. I’m sure Trump has an army of such lawyers to help him bring in foreign workers to work in his hotels, etc.
 
philipl said:
It’s not a private interpretation of mine it is a fact. immigration laws are set by congress. Since non americans not living in this country legally have no constitutional right what so ever.
Click to expand...
It’s not true that illegal immigrants have no rights. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants:
**The] Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. **This fact sheet from the National Lawyers Guild outlines a host of rights afforded to immigrants and citizens alike. (There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office.)
Click to expand...
But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
Click to expand...
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html
 
“This is what became obvious, probably fatally so: Mr. Trump is not going to get serious about running for president,” she wrote. “He does not have a second act, there are no hidden depths, there will be no ‘pivot.’ It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be, it’s that he doesn’t have the skill set needed now — discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment. There’s a clueless quality about him.”
Click to expand...
“All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted,” Noonan wrote. “The arrows he’s taken are arrows he shot.”
Click to expand...
:sad_yes:

Exactly. I wonder if the RNC Convention was just a TV production, more or less. Time will tell.

washingtonexaminer.com/peggy-noonan-trump-doesnt-have-the-skill-set-needed-now/article/2598723
 
I have come to the conclusion that Trump does not really want to win and perhaps never did.
Unless he turns things around quickly-that is my conclusion.
 
Vanny said:
I have come to the conclusion that Trump does not really want to win and perhaps never did.
Unless he turns things around quickly-that is my conclusion.
Click to expand...
I think it was all an ego thing - he has talked about getting into politics as kind of the crown of his career since the 90s. So far he is just applying his apprentice/entrepreneur style to it and it is not working at this point. No doubt it is time for a substantive “pivot.”

Ironically though losing would be a huge blow to his ego, so there is definitely hope, right? It is in his self-interest to succeed. Don’t discount this. 🙂 He may figure out a pivot yet - I don’t care why or how.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Of course babies still died under Bush. But he did the best he could in appointing two prolife justices to the Supreme Court, both of whom voted to uphold state bans on partial birth abortion.

And they’ll continue to die if Trump is elected until he can (as he said he would) appoint justices known to be prolife. If Hillary Clinton is elected, she will appoint pro-abortion justices, just as she said she would, including those who support partial birth abortion similar to Obama’s appointees to the court.
Click to expand...
But with Trump there is no absolute. He has said a lot of things and has done the opposite. It is not the media spinning it, it is Trump whose making these remarks about stuff. i don’t know how confident that is.
 
Some Conservatives Say Trump a Bigger Threat Than SCOTUS Nominations

“It’s the Supreme Court, stupid,” wrote Hugh Hewitt last week in defense of his vote for Donald Trump, despite the Republican presidential nominee not being his first choice.

Days earlier, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Trump had all but taunted conservatives on this front: “If you really like Donald Trump, that’s great, but if you don’t, you have to vote for me anyway. You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges. Have no choice, sorry, sorry, sorry. You have no choice.”

One seat on the highest court is already vacant after Antonin Scalia’s death and has remained empty as Republicans refuse to hold a hearing or a vote on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

Three other justices will be at least 80 during the next president’s first term. Even for conservatives who revile Trump, the prospect of losing control of the court for a generation terrifies them. “I know what a very liberal SCOTUS means,” Hewitt wrote. “Conservatism is done.”

Still, some conservative writers are unpersuaded, even after the candidate took the unusual step of releasing a list of his ideal nominees.

“It’s a Trump commitment, and Trump commitments are notoriously worthless,” wrote David Frum [speechwriter for G.W. Bush] at The Atlantic, adding, “If Donald Trump ever gains the power to nominate a justice of the Supreme Court, what he will seek will not be conservatism. It will be pliability on whatever issue is preoccupying Trump at that particular moment.”

At The National Review, Ian Tuttle similarly dismissed the court as reason for skeptical conservatives to get in line. Even if Hillary Clinton were to appoint liberal justices that threaten conservative ideals, “this damage accumulates slowly, and it can be mitigated. Conservatives often forget that the Supreme Court can only render decisions on cases presented before it. Disciplined conservative legal circles can curtail the Court’s power to establish national precedents by refusing to appeal to it.” (Many liberal groups have already been employing this tactic with the current Supreme Court.)

Moreover, Tuttle writes, “What Trump supporters refuse to do is weigh it against another clear and present danger to our constitutional order: a President Donald J. Trump.”
 
Al_Moritz said:
Some Conservatives Say Trump a Bigger Threat Than SCOTUS Nominations

“It’s the Supreme Court, stupid,” wrote Hugh Hewitt last week in defense of his vote for Donald Trump, despite the Republican presidential nominee not being his first choice.

Days earlier, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Trump had all but taunted conservatives on this front: “If you really like Donald Trump, that’s great, but if you don’t, you have to vote for me anyway. You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges. Have no choice, sorry, sorry, sorry. You have no choice.”

One seat on the highest court is already vacant after Antonin Scalia’s death and has remained empty as Republicans refuse to hold a hearing or a vote on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

Three other justices will be at least 80 during the next president’s first term. Even for conservatives who revile Trump, the prospect of losing control of the court for a generation terrifies them. “I know what a very liberal SCOTUS means,” Hewitt wrote. “Conservatism is done.”

Still, some conservative writers are unpersuaded, even after the candidate took the unusual step of releasing a list of his ideal nominees.

“It’s a Trump commitment, and Trump commitments are notoriously worthless,” wrote David Frum [speechwriter for G.W. Bush] at The Atlantic, adding, “If Donald Trump ever gains the power to nominate a justice of the Supreme Court, what he will seek will not be conservatism. It will be pliability on whatever issue is preoccupying Trump at that particular moment.”

At The National Review, Ian Tuttle similarly dismissed the court as reason for skeptical conservatives to get in line. Even if Hillary Clinton were to appoint liberal justices that threaten conservative ideals, “this damage accumulates slowly, and it can be mitigated. Conservatives often forget that the Supreme Court can only render decisions on cases presented before it. Disciplined conservative legal circles can curtail the Court’s power to establish national precedents by refusing to appeal to it.” (Many liberal groups have already been employing this tactic with the current Supreme Court.)

Moreover, Tuttle writes, “What Trump supporters refuse to do is weigh it against another clear and present danger to our constitutional order: a President Donald J. Trump.”
Click to expand...
Yeah. I’m really disappointed what’s happened the past several days. Paul Ryan, who I am very familiar with being close to my neck of the woods can’t even get an endorcement from Trump. I guess I can’t be surprised by this turn of events, but I’ll say this much - I’m back to leaning towards Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) at this point. 55/45 Castle/Trump at this stage.

Conservatism may already be done. The fact Trump got nominated tells me this.
 
Excerpts from:

Hillary Clinton’s Newest Challenge: Great Expectations
James Carville, the famed campaign strategist of Bill Clinton’s 1992 run, tells U.S. News he’s heard that some Democratic pollsters suspended their surveys this week, because their samples were reading too Democratic and were not representative of the ultimate electorate.
Click to expand...
“After a convention produces these bumps, the Democrats want to stay on the phone for the interview and Republicans don’t. It produces a very high party ID. You expect an 8-point spread on Democratic ID, and they’re coming in at 12 and 14,” Carville says. “Yes, there’s a big bounce now, but let’s wait awhile. It’ll settle into a good place, but it won’t settle into where it is.”
Click to expand...
Past modern-day conventions typically have produced a bump of 5 to 6 points for their candidate, according to Stefan Hankin, a Democratic pollster who was part of President Barack Obama’s polling team.
Click to expand...
Clinton got that, but what’s less clear is whether it was a result of her convention, the catastrophic days that Trump endured this week or some combination of both.
Click to expand...
Even those inside Clinton’s campaign are wrestling with what the flood of data means for their standing. One Clinton campaign operative, who could not speak on the record without the campaign leadership’s permission, admits “the numbers are particularly haywire right now.”
Click to expand...
Clinton is undoubtedly ahead of Trump, he says, but the real test of her staying power will be where she stands in surveys two weeks from now, once the afterglow of the convention has faded.
Click to expand...
“Sure there are some Democrats who think we’ve got it in the bag. I just think there’s too much staying power for him with people so upset at the political system,” the operative says. “He’s not going anywhere. I think it’ll tighten up, it always does.”
Click to expand...
usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-05/hillary-clintons-newest-challenge-great-expectations
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top