Jump to content

Interesting question for lawyers about Trump's revised travel ban...


Recommended Posts

Maybe a good way to ask this involves a hypothetical situation involving another issue.

Suppose a president on the campaign trail expressed dislike towards blacks and said that he wanted to keep blacks from voting.  And suppose he won, even though in reality a candidate who said that would never win the election.  His first act as president is a voter ID law that is clearly aimed at blacks.  It gives exceptions for non-blacks regarding ID, it creates a gigantic cost for blacks to get the ID law, and otherwise is obviously discriminatory.  The court overturns that bill as discriminatory.  

The president then comes back with a new voter ID law that removes the obvious discriminatory aspects.  Everybody is required to get the ID, no exceptions, the ID is free, locations to get the free ID are widely available, etc.  IOW, few people would view this law as discriminatory outside the context of the racist campaign comments by this hypothetical president.  

Here is the legal question that I've been wondering about...would the racist campaign comments be used by the courts to raise skepticism about the new ID bill?  IOW, having indicated during the campaign a motivation to discriminate against blacks, and having used the first voter ID law to target blacks, how much do these things factor into judging the constitutionality of new iterations of the law that are not obviously targeted at blacks?  I doubt that any future voter ID legislation by the president would automatically be unconstitutional.  And I doubt that any future ID legislation would not be viewed by the courts with a lot of skepticism.  But is there some standard/test or method used by the courts to determine when campaign comments are no longer used to determine intent of legislation?

Looking at Trump's new travel ban, it looks much more likely to pass legal scrutiny.  But those sueing over it continue to point to Trump's campaign comments about a Muslim ban in their legal filings.  So I'm trying to figure out whether those comments will carry as much weight in establishing intent with this revised ban than the previous one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

You idiots literally missed the entire question being asked.  [Hint: It suggests that this current travel ban would pass legal scrutiny.]

But morons are going to moron.

Now, now, Trout. You're not showing me that liberal peace n' love like you want to show Middle Eastern immigrants. 

I feel like you would actually, dare I say it, have me deported. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SpongeDad said:

Now, now, Trout. You're not showing me that liberal peace n' love like you want to show Middle Eastern immigrants. 

I feel like you would actually, dare I say it, have me deported. 

Oh, I'm sorry.  You wanted to be taken seriously.  Okay, then perhaps you can offer insight into the question that I'm asking...what is the standard/test or other method used by courts to determine how much weight to give public comments by government officials regarding the intent of legislation?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/watch-what-happens-when-desperate-starving-muslim-refugees-are-offered-red-cross-food

But It’s not politically-correct to be anything but heart-wrenchingly sympathetic to these “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

 

In fact, Dutch writer Joost Niemöller says (as quoted and translated here by LiveLeak) “On the Al Jazeera website we found a comment about the illegal immigrants flooding Europe. According to AJ, we are not allowed to speak about “immigrants”, because they are “refugees.”

Al Jazeera is the state-funded broadcaster in Qatar. Qatar itself takes in ZERO “refugees.”

The six Gulf countries — Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain — have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

Nevertheless Qatar wants to teach us a politically correct lesson.

In reality, there is a plan behind the recent movements of these hordes.

The main origin of the panic in the Middle East is ISIS, whose sophisticated and professional PR apparatus has made it abundantly clear that the mass movement of people towards Europe is part of their strategy.”

It’s actually an ancient strategy, straight from the Islamic playbook called The Hijra (Arabic: هِجْرَة‎ hijrah), also called Hegira or Hejira, the migration or journey. Hijra is one of the most effective methods of jihad which requires no military or wars. But it is an invasion nonetheless, and the politically-correct, humanitarian West is inviting it with open arms.

Guess what happens next?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BrockSamson said:

Non-migrants in the U.S.

detroit-world-series-riot.jpg

original.jpg

Dámn Brock, you must have dug hard for white anarchy to dig up that top pic from the late 70's. And the bottom pic is from San Fran after the World series, the most liberal city in America. I fail to see where Allah's will is an example here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Oh, I'm sorry.  You wanted to be taken seriously.  Okay, then perhaps you can offer insight into the question that I'm asking...what is the standard/test or other method used by courts to determine how much weight to give public comments by government officials regarding the intent of legislation?

 

Nothing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Oh, I'm sorry.  You wanted to be taken seriously.  Okay, then perhaps you can offer insight into the question that I'm asking...what is the standard/test or other method used by courts to determine how much weight to give public comments by government officials regarding the intent of legislation?

 

My answer, if you choose to disagree with, will only be rebuttaled with "idiot" or "moron". 

@lostone Remember last week how we were saying it's good to debate without name calling? You need to have a word with your Lib friend Trout, he's making Liberals fall into the same old stereotype of being childish. But I hold you in higher regard on the Liberal totem pole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SpongeDad said:

My answer, if you choose to disagree with, will only be rebuttaled with "idiot" or "moron". 

@lostone Remember last week how we were saying it's good to debate without name calling? You need to have a word with your Lib friend Trout, he's making Liberals fall into the same old stereotype of being childish. But I hold you in higher regard on the Liberal totem pole.

So no answer to the OP, just a bunch of moronic memes and pot shots at Islam.  

Act like an idiot and I'll call you an idiot.  Offer a reasonable response to the question that I'm asking about...which is a pretty important legal issue if you think about it...and I'll respond with the appropriate respect.

So far, you and DH are acting like morons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Oh, I'm sorry.  You wanted to be taken seriously.  Okay, then perhaps you can offer insight into the question that I'm asking...what is the standard/test or other method used by courts to determine how much weight to give public comments by government officials regarding the intent of legislation?

 

9 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Nothing?

Jeez man, relax. I'm not in standby mode waiting for your every response. I'm actually working right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...