• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ACLU lawyer: Travel ban would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer argued before a federal court of appeals that the central reason the White House’s proposed travel freeze is unconstitutional is because President Donald Trump is the one who ordered it.

For more than two hours Monday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, heard heated oral arguments regarding a lower court order that blocked the president’s controversial travel freeze, which would have temporarily suspended entry into the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — all Muslim-majority countries.

On March 15, a Federal District Court judge in Maryland blocked the travel ban, which was in its second iteration after the initial executive order faced a similar fate. The federal government appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.

ACLU staff attorney Omar C. Jadwat argued before the circuit court panel that the freeze should be ruled unconstitutional because of then-candidate Trump’s immigration-related comments on the campaign trail. In December 2015, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

The premise of Jadwat’s argument led Judge Paul Niemeyer, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, to propose a hypothetical scenario to the ACLU lawyer. Niemeyer asked Jadat if a similar travel moratorium would be accepted as constitutional if it had been signed by a president whose last name was not “Trump.”

After going back and forth a few times, an apparently frustrated Niemeyer offered this detailed scenario:

We have an order on its face. We can read this order and we have no antecedent statements by a candidate about this order. We have a candidate who won the presidency — some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency — and then chose to issue this particular order with whatever counsel he took. … He issued this executive order. Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored?

Jadwat had already twice refused to answer the question, but when the judge offered such a comprehensive hypothetical, the liberal lawyer finally admitted: “Yes, your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional.”

ACLU lawyer: Travel ban would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it
 

Happy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer argued before a federal court of appeals that the central reason the White House’s proposed travel freeze is unconstitutional is because President Donald Trump is the one who ordered it.

For more than two hours Monday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, heard heated oral arguments regarding a lower court order that blocked the president’s controversial travel freeze, which would have temporarily suspended entry into the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — all Muslim-majority countries.

On March 15, a Federal District Court judge in Maryland blocked the travel ban, which was in its second iteration after the initial executive order faced a similar fate. The federal government appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.

ACLU staff attorney Omar C. Jadwat argued before the circuit court panel that the freeze should be ruled unconstitutional because of then-candidate Trump’s immigration-related comments on the campaign trail. In December 2015, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

The premise of Jadwat’s argument led Judge Paul Niemeyer, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, to propose a hypothetical scenario to the ACLU lawyer. Niemeyer asked Jadat if a similar travel moratorium would be accepted as constitutional if it had been signed by a president whose last name was not “Trump.”

After going back and forth a few times, an apparently frustrated Niemeyer offered this detailed scenario:

We have an order on its face. We can read this order and we have no antecedent statements by a candidate about this order. We have a candidate who won the presidency — some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency — and then chose to issue this particular order with whatever counsel he took. … He issued this executive order. Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored?

Jadwat had already twice refused to answer the question, but when the judge offered such a comprehensive hypothetical, the liberal lawyer finally admitted: “Yes, your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional.”

ACLU lawyer: Travel ban would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it

The ACLU lawyer has an opinion that has merit in the world of "opinions" having merit in deciding legal matters.

Liberals have twisted the INTENT of Trump's temporary block from the need for the US to have a review and solution to knowing WHO is entering the country and HOW TO adequately monitor their activities...
TO; blah, blah, blah, everyone hates Muslims, boo hoo hoo.

It is simply political volleyball, and the Liberals are hoping for a "spiked" volley against someone (Trump) they do not like...and seemingly is what the ACLU lawyer was hinting toward with his comments.
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It all started with the power of judicial review the SCOTUS claimed for itself in Marbury v Madison.

Before Marbury, the SCOTUS stuck to its Constitutional role of deciding the Constitutionality of the text of a law.

However, SCOTUS tried to claim power and authority never granted to it by the Constitution and now courts no longer judge the text of a law, but the intent and possible outcome of a law.

It's why we must begin recalling and impeaching judges who believe they have the right to legislate from the bench.
 

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
Well, this is what happens when you don't know when to shut your mouth. I think it's wrong, but actions have consequences and you can't try to denigrate federal judges without expecting some push back. Judges, after all, are people and they react like people.
 

Brent W

Active Member
Well, this is what happens when you don't know when to shut your mouth.

Yep. Liberals must have made him open it though since they are the source of all the problems in the world (or just the problems of certain members here).
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It all started with the power of judicial review the SCOTUS claimed for itself in Marbury v Madison.

Before Marbury, the SCOTUS stuck to its Constitutional role of deciding the Constitutionality of the text of a law.

However, SCOTUS tried to claim power and authority never granted to it by the Constitution and now courts no longer judge the text of a law, but the intent and possible outcome of a law.

It's why we must begin recalling and impeaching judges who believe they have the right to legislate from the bench.
We need a President who will act as Lincoln did and put the Supreme court, and all lower courts, back in their proper places. He made it plain to them that they were the weakest branch of government and he did not abide by their rulings.
 

Adonia

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We need a President who will act as Lincoln did and put the Supreme court, and all lower courts, back in their proper places. He made it plain to them that they were the weakest branch of government and he did not abide by their rulings.

It's those spineless Congress critters who have the power to rein the Federal courts in. Other than the 4 or 5 constitutionalists in the Congress, all the others have no problem with overreaching courts and will never do anything to set things straight.
 

Brent W

Active Member
LOL Which proves what ? Conservatives are called all sorts of names on this board. Add "racist", homophobe, homophobic, mysoginist, hater of the poor, etc, then get back to me. I'm sure they're a few others.

It proves that liberals are talked about more here, which is what was being discussed. If you want a pity party for Conservatives then sure:

Screenshot 2017-05-12 19.32.46.png Screenshot 2017-05-12 19.33.38.png Screenshot 2017-05-12 19.34.23.png Screenshot 2017-05-12 19.35.05.png Screenshot 2017-05-12 19.35.56.png

Anything else you want looked up? :)
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Trump ?

Also, you are simply proving the word gets used more. You would be hard pressed to prove your original claim.
 
Last edited:
Top