Posted on Feb 16, 2018
Appeals Court Rules That Trump's Travel Ban 3.0 Is Unconstitutional
1.28K
11
12
4
4
0
When you start out by stating you intend to violate the US Constitutions 1st Amendment, courts are unlikely to believe you are doing the same thing for innocent reasons, courts tend to be shy of the cultists and crazies who will believe that kind of BS
Appeals Court Rules That Trump's Travel Ban 3.0 Is Unconstitutional
Posted from reason.comPosted in these groups: 
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
Who will be disappointied remains to be seen. Kenedy is likely to vote against trump since actions due to "animus' are something he can not normally abide,
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
So statements made by individuals are included in examining the constitutionality of a law - I have learned something today as I thought the courts only looked at the laws language. From searching the XO not once is the word Muslim(s) mentioned
(1)
(0)
SFC Chad Sowash
Intent is also looked upon which means you can review just HOW the law is intended to be used. Intent is pretty important with every law.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SFC Chad Sowash - So if the intent is to ban Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. what about the Muslims from the other 44 Muslim majority nations, or Muslims from non-Muslim majority nations? As far as I can tell, there is no effect on them. Or did I miss something?
Seven Islamic theocracies - two include in the travel ban
Twelve Nations where Islam is the Official State religion - four included in the travel ban
Seven Islamic theocracies - two include in the travel ban
Twelve Nations where Islam is the Official State religion - four included in the travel ban
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google