Ha, the good life.
(20 characters)
Mine too, she has blunted her teeth playing with rocks.
The prey drive in these dogs is amazing, mine loves to chase lizards and has flipped a 2x2 foot piece of concrete to get at one.
Whats his name?
Push you should start a ranch thread (Iâd like to see more of it), you are living my dream.
So your theory on constitutional law is that words have no meaning until they are challenged and ruled upon by the Supreme court?
Is that how we write law? Hey the speed limit is 65, but it hasnât been challenged in court yet so who knows. I know thatâs an over simplification, but come on man.
How do we know what the Establishment clause means and pertains to? Because I can read an English sentence.
Why? You havenât made an argument as to who would have standing. You did however do a nice Trump impersonation and said smart people agree with you.
No, this is horseshit. Itâs not clear that youâre even reading this thread. Follow along. Or donât â it really doesnât matter to me â but this is the last time I follow along for you⊠From my posts in the last 12 hours:
"Noneconomic injury
A change in behavior as a result of the asserted Establishment Clause violation such as a decision to refrain from an activity that the plaintiff has previously engaged in, or some other alteration in the challengerâs lifestyle or activities. An example of a change in behavior could be a change in the route traveled in order to avoid a religious symbol on public property.[/quote]
Re-read what my pal wrote above about (letâs say annual) family visits vis-a-vis alteration in the challengerâs lifestyle. If a drive by the park is an injurious alteration to a lifestyle, I daresay a cancellation of momâs annual visit is one. Furthermore, non-taxpayer-related economic injury would seem to cover the business-interest hypothetical.
"Your correspondent is mistaken. Even if we assume that the policy would be enacted in such a way as to bar citizens from taxpayer standing, the proposed ban would create uncountable avenues for nontaxpayer Establishment Clause standing. The Court noted the following in Valley Forge:
âRespondent Americans United claims that it has certain unidentified members who reside in Pennsylvania. It does not explain, however, how this fact establishes a cognizable injury where none existed before. Respondent is still obligated to allege facts sufficient to establish that one or more of its members has suffered, or is threatened with, an injury other than their belief that the transfer violated the Constitution.â
It simply is not plausible, particularly given the current legal climate, that the hypothetical citizens I offered in my last email- and many thousands more- would not meet a âhas suffered, or is threatened with, an injury other than their belief that the [ban] violated the Constitutionâ standard. The injury would be widespread, concrete, and easily found out by a group looking to challenge the Constitutionality of President Trumpâs stab at statesmanship."
1 Like
I think thatâs whistling past the issue and simply not correct. Standing to challenge a law under the EC is hard to get even for citizens. Here, trying to vindicate anotherâs rights - no matter how labeled, thatâs what it is here - is even harder, as it is generally not available for lots of common sense reasons.
And imagine if it was - every person with a relationship with a foreign non-citizen has an avenue to challenge federal laws that impact the non-citizen on a claim of âIâm injured tooâ?
Who gets to sue? If you have a contract or business relationship with a non-citizen, how big of a relationship do you need to sue? Major contract? Smaller? Can anyone reasonably know?
Family members? Sons, daughters? Immediate family? What about cousins - if not, why not? How about really close friends?
What about other parts of the constitution? Thereâs nothing special about the EC - what about other rights?
From a prudential point of view, itâs an unmanageable Pandoraâs Box. And it will be left to the political process, not the judicial one.
I find it ironic that the Muslim ban has people more pissed than the reasons why the ban is being proposed.
The White House missed the San Bernardino shooter who made it through government background checks for a fiancĂ© Visa, and was admitted despite the numerous references to ISIS and jihad on her Facebook page. When asked why government didnât check social media, they said they did not want it to appear that they were profiling.
People may not like the sound of banning a certain group of people, but when it means saving lives, it doesnât sound quite as bad. If government is going to be this PC on the issue, and it could result in people being killed, Trumpâs ban will win votes.
1 Like
[quote=âthunderbolt23, post:1064, topic:215570, full:trueâ]
- You donât have a constitutional right to a business or contractual relationship with a third party. The constitutional violation has to be an injury to you, not someone else.[/quote]
See above. It is entirely irrelevant that I donât have a Constitutional right to a business or contractual relationship. The Constitution is implicated by the mere fact of the alleged EC violation. The business/contractual relationship has nothing to do with any Constitutional protection beyond the fact that it satisfies the requirement that I have sustained a personal and particularized injury. SimilarlyâŠ
âŠYou can take your pick from what is a wide variety of injuries. There is no line in the Constitution about taking on undue burdens in order to avoid mental distress, but if such is sufficiently personal and particularized and proceeds from govât entanglement with religion, it is an injury that confers standing. And if such a thing as that could confer standing, we can imagine how much more solidly a Muslim ban might do so. For example, a few years ago, my neighbor brought his Nepalese daughter over to the country to live with him. Sheâd been staying with her grandmother, and heâd been waiting until he had enough money for her travel and living expenses here. Had they been Muslim at a time during which Trumpâs ban would obtain, she would not have been able even to visit him. In light of thisâŠ
âRespondent is still obligated to allege facts sufficient to establish that one or more of its members has suffered, or is threatened with, an injury other than their belief that the transfer violated the Constitutionâ
âŠand what we know about the kinds of (much less grievous) injuries that confer nontaxpayer EC standing in all kinds of school prayer and public display cases, we can say assuredly that he himself has a strong case for standing.
Again, this has nothing to do with the rights of non-citizens, and everything to do with injuries to â deep, personal, particularized alterations to the lives of â citizens. This is bolstered by what I excerpted above from WNEU School of Law (âA change in behavior as a result of the asserted Establishment Clause violation such as ⊠some other alteration in the challengerâs lifestyle or activitiesâ [no more visits from mom being an infinitely more grievous and personal injury TO DAUGHTER, who is a citizen, than John Doe having to drive a different route in order to avoid mental distress), by what my source explained in his email, and by Volokh/Tribe/et. al. and their assumption re: standing.
1 Like
[quote=âsmh_23, post:1073, topic:215570, full:trueâ]
FWIW, just because he sent it along, this my acquaintance received from one of the prominent names I cited earlier:
1 Like
Yeah, I read that whole mess again just to make sure I didnât miss some hidden point you may have made.
Donât worry though, you didnât.
Doesnât appear that you know what the fuck youâre talking about. You said âYou havenât made an argument as to who would have standing,â and this is whatâs called a lie, because I plainly have made an argument as to who would have standing, as I proved to you by excerpting that very argument in the post youâre responding to. Whether or not you can follow along is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is something to follow. There is.
Iâd rather not hold your hand through any more confusion. Save the ânu-uh,â because nobody is fooled by this. You said something and it was bullshit. Thatâs all.
Edited.
Here are my issues Max and many of these issues have been raised for over 200 years now.
-
Banning all Muslims will take more government with greater power. A further expansion of federal power that is already dangerously overpowered is not in Americas best interest, IMO.
-
Itâs not practical. There are 1.4 billion or so Muslims that live all over the planet. I bet there are Muslims in, my conservative guess here, 85% of the worldâs nations. Point being, they could travel to the U.S. from anywhere. It takes an enormous amount of resources just to identify the radicals. Identifying them all would be nearly impossible and incredibly expensive.
-
Punishing all for the sins of the few is a progressive âsolutionâ to just about every problem. I put the word solution in quotes because it never actually solves a problem.
A white cop killed a black kid in cold blood = all white cops are the bad guy.
A 4-year-old kills himself with his fatherâs loaded gun = all gun owners are the bad guy and guns are evil.
Conservatives and generally Republicans would argue both are ridiculous yet when it comes to Muslims the hypocrisy is glaring.
- Government surveillance of social media is borderline, at least IMO, a violation of the 4th especially if that media is set to private. The fact that it is on the internet shouldnât be enough for the government to claim they get to see it and again the resources it would take to monitor Facebook alone would be costly and may or may not stop an act of terror.
The police state is already a problem in this country and I donât think it is prudent to increase this.
Ultimately, for me, it will always boil down to the balance between freedom and security. I will always side with freedom over security and not just freedom for Americans, but the principles behind freedom. Yes, I understand that means some people will die victims and others will give their lives for these principles. That is better than the alternative of tyranny.
1 Like
Correct me if I am wrong of if I have missed something (been gone for a week) but was not the call for halting immigration from countries who have been shown to support and harbor terrorists, until the system to vet the immigrants could be improved?
Has this changed, or has the meme world of Facebook convinced the world that Trump wants to gas every muslim he can find.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/
I have no idea whether his story has changed in some babblingly incoherent way, but this is the proposal that is under debate. Itâs unambiguous, and itâs in writing.
âDonald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our countryâs representatives can figure out what is going on,â December 2015.
Ok.
I was seeing all sorts of things people were posting that Trump was calling for the deportation of every muslim in the U.S. and so forth.
I cannot agree with a total ban, I can however agree that the vetting process for immigration into this country, sucks all sorts of ass.
2 Likes
-
Yes, it totally matters that you have no constitutional right to the business relationship. You donât have another legal injury other than your loss of business profits, etc., which isnât constitutionally protected. What other injury would you complain of? Thereâs not one. All you would have is a general grievance as to the law you donât like, and thatâs not an avenue to get the law challenged.
-
Are you aware of Kerry v. Din from 2015?
But to a larger point, itâs a monstrous suggestion and could never be accomplished. And while itâs important to discuss and understand because it signals what kind of person Trump is, itâs moot because it will never happen, and even if elected Trump wonât pursue it.
[quote=âthunderbolt23, post:1081, topic:215570, full:trueâ]
- Yes, it totally matters that you have no constitutional right to the business relationship. You donât have another legal injury other than your loss of business profits, etc., which isnât constitutionally protected. What other injury would you complain of? Thereâs not one. All you would have is a general grievance as to the law you donât like, and thatâs not an avenue to get the law challenged.[/quote]
No, you have standing if you suffer personal and particularized injury as a result of an alleged EC violation. The Constitutional right is implied by the cause (EC violation); business or family injury are merely the particular forms of the injury, and all they must do is satisfy certain conditions for nontaxpayer Establishment Clause standing (personal, particularized, imminent/actual). As cited and described above (Iâm putting it in your general formulation), a driver doesnât have another legal injury other than his having to drive out of his way in order to avoid emotional distress, which isnât constitutionally protected. And yet with certain conditions met â personal, particularized, etc. â standing can be conferred in such a case, because the injury resulted from a violation of the Constitution. The particulars of the injury itself do not need to figure in any way into a single line of the Constitution, so long as they result from an EC violation and meet the generalized standards of a real injury (there are many kinds, some more powerful than others). In our case, the injury to the citizen is incomparably more grievous than in the case I cited above, and, indeed, than in most of the EC cases in modern American history.
Yes, but it doesnât bear on the question at hand. The inability to live with oneâs spouse is merely the standing-conferring injury. One does not need a Constitutional right to it, exactly as one does not need a Constitutional right to unburdened travel among religious displays or unburdened avoidance of Bible studies. The Constitutional rights implied supervene on and only on the Establishment Clause; the injury merely connects the citizen to the violation.
I concur.
(20 characters)