President of the US Picks

[smh_23]

Again, it’s very simple and has now been corroborated twofold:

[quote]
A change in behavior as a result of the asserted Establishment Clause violation such as … alteration in the challenger’s lifestyle or activities.[/quote]

http://www.wneclaw.com/religion/standing.html

This ^ can confer nontaxpayer Establishment Clause standing if it meets certain requirements (personal, particularized, etc.). I can’t pay mom’s way to visit me over here as I have every year = alteration in the challenger’s lifestyle or activities PLUS, emphatically, undue burden. Same with business relationships, other family members, etc.

Either the law professor who wrote these words, my friend (law professor), Tribe (law professor), and the precedent cited in the email last night are literally wrong on the simple factual accuracy of the above, or there is no more controversy to discuss re: standing.

Edited.

[Aragorn]

@thunderbolt23

while it’s important to discuss and understand because it signals what kind of person Trump is, it’s moot because it will never happen, and even if elected Trump won’t pursue it.

I am not sure about that frankly. I don’t think it will ever happen, no. But I would not be shocked if Trump decided to pursue it until judges or others told him no. Or maybe even past then. He has not shown much in the way of sense other than marketing sense.

[Aragorn]

@MaximusB

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 fiancé Visa, and was admitted despite the numerous references to ISIS and jihad on her Facebook page. When asked why government didn’t 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 doesn’t sound quite as bad. If government is going to be this PC on the issue, and it could result in people being killed, Trump’s ban will win votes.

I agree utterly with usmc on this one. There are much larger and more important things at stake even than people’s lives, as valuable as innocent lives are to me and to this nation. One of those things is preserving liberty and limits on Federal power. That is the lifeblood of the Republic and without it–and we have already compromised far far too much–many more lives will be lost in every conceivable way when liberty comes crashing down. I would rather dangerous liberty than peaceful slavery, as a wise man once said.

[therajraj]

Banning Muslims isn’t just about the short term it’s also the long term.

Do you have any interests in what the demographics of the US will look like long after you’re dead?

Smaller nations in Europe that have been taking muslim immigrants in for decades only to experience major negative consequences.

Rapes in countries such as Sweden are almost all carried out by north African and middle eastern Muslim men.

There are whole Muslim ghettos forming all over Europe.

Muslim immigrants are largely parasitical in their nature as they overwhelmingly rely on welfare.

Forget playing constitutional lawyer for second and ask yourself what benefit specific do muslim immigrants provide to the US?

[therajraj]

Looks like people are finally waking up to Muslims at least in some parts:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/amid-heated-debate-sandpoint-city-council-withdraws-resolution-supporting-refugee-resettlement/Content?oid=3698683

[Aragorn]

@therajraj

Looks like people are finally waking up to Muslims at least in some parts:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/amid-heated-debate-sandpoint-city-council-withdraws-resolution-supporting-refugee-resettlement/Content?oid=3698683

Being against a religious ban is not the same thing as supporting resettlement. Entirely different classes of things. I can be against a religious ban for what SHOULD be obvious and common sense reasons, but that does not mean I favor mass resettlement or any of the steps Obama talked about the USA needing to take for the refugee crisis. They are not the same.

[therajraj]

@Aragorn

@therajraj

Looks like people are finally waking up to Muslims at least in some parts:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/amid-heated-debate-sandpoint-city-council-withdraws-resolution-supporting-refugee-resettlement/Content?oid=3698683

Being against a religious ban is not the same thing as supporting resettlement. Entirely different classes of things. I can be against a religious ban for what SHOULD be obvious and common sense reasons, but that does not mean I favor mass resettlement or any of the steps Obama talked about the USA needing to take for the refugee crisis. They are not the same.

It sounds like you’re trying to make a technical point.

Okay

[Aragorn]

@therajraj

Banning Muslims isn’t just about the short term it’s also the long term.

Do you have any interests in what the demographics of the US will look like long after you’re dead?

Smaller nations in Europe that have been taking muslim immigrants in for decades only to experience major negative consequences.

Rapes in countries such as Sweden are almost all carried out by north African and middle eastern Muslim men.

There are whole Muslim ghettos forming all over Europe.

Muslim immigrants are largely parasitical in their nature as they overwhelmingly rely on welfare.

Forget playing constitutional lawyer for second and ask yourself what benefit specific do muslim immigrants provide to the US?

No.

It’s not about utilitarianism. You may make laws based on strictly utilitarian philosophy in other countries, but not in the USA where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the law of the land. What you offer is a red herring. Contrary to what you would like to believe, the Constitutional question is the most important one to answer properly.

And remember, this is not talking about banning visas from a certain country for geopolitical reasons or due to concerns, as Carter did. The topic under discussion is banning all people of a certain religion from entering the US.

I have an interest in what the demographics of my country will be after I am dead because I have an interest in what the next generations and my descendants will inherit as a nation. However, I have a far more pressing and FUNDAMENTAL interest to preserve what this country stands for. This country does not stand for “nice white people” against the “barbarian hordes” of Negros, the Irish, the Poles, Italians, Hispanics, or any other immigrant group that has legally mass immigrated to our country over the past 200 years. Each wave was part of our evolution and to view otherwise is to give dangerous play in one’s mind to Stormfront style ideology based on race or religion (or both).

This country stands for rule of law, it stands for liberty, it stands for free speech, it stands for personal responsibility and work ethic, and it stands for optimism. Those things are infinitely more important than any demographic shift there is, and they can ONLY be protected by protecting the Constitution’s supremacy even when it makes us uncomfortable.

[MaximusB]

You will not have any liberty if you let reckless immigration continue to fester, particularly from countries that have such a massive difference in ideologies.

If the envelope is pushed, Trump and future Trumps will win.

[therajraj]

[quote=“Aragorn, post:1092, topic:215570, full:true”]

No.

It’s not about utilitarianism. You may make laws based on strictly utilitarian philosophy in other countries, but not in the USA where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the law of the land. What you offer is a red herring. Contrary to what you would like to believe, the Constitutional question is the most important one to answer properly.[/quote]

I’ve said this earlier: start with the 50 Islamic countries. A muslim ban may not be feasible but the 50 Islamic countries is a good starting point. How’s that?

[quote=“Aragorn, post:1092, topic:215570, full:true”]
And remember, this is not talking about banning visas from a certain country for geopolitical reasons or due to concerns, as Carter did. The topic under discussion is banning all people of a certain religion from entering the US. [/quote]

Okay.

[quote=“Aragorn, post:1092, topic:215570, full:true”]
I have an interest in what the demographics of my country will be after I am dead because I have an interest in what the next generations and my descendants will inherit as a nation. However, I have a far more pressing and FUNDAMENTAL interest to preserve what this country stands for. This country does not stand for “nice white people” against the “barbarian hordes” of Negros, the Irish, the Poles, Italians, Hispanics, or any other immigrant group that has legally mass immigrated to our country over the past 200 years. Each wave was part of our evolution and to view otherwise is to give dangerous play in one’s mind to Stormfront style ideology based on race or religion (or both). [/quote]

I agree BUT do you not also agree certain groups are culturally incompatible to live alongside one another?

[quote=“Aragorn, post:1092, topic:215570, full:true”]
This country stands for rule of law, it stands for liberty, it stands for free speech, it stands for personal responsibility and work ethic, and it stands for optimism.[/quote]

Agreed.

@Aragorn

Those things are infinitely more important than any demographic shift there is

And here’s where we disagree. If you want these values you to live on long after you’re gone you need people who also hold these values. Will Muslim immigrants who have 3.1 children per woman, uphold these values when they become demographically significant in the US? Are they upholding European values in Europe?

Do any of the 50 Islamic countries have western style democracies?

[thunderbolt23]

@smh_23

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 (I’m putting it in your general formulation), a driver doesn’t have another legal injury other than his having to drive out of his way in order to avoid emotional distress, which isn’t constitutionally protected. And yet with certain conditions met – personal, particularized, etc. – 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.

The driver in your scenario is actually suffering a violation of his constitutional right - directly. He is being subjected to it. As you note, he enjoys constitutional protection against the violation.

As a contractor, what injury do you have that emanates from a violation of the Constitution? Simply saying “particularized” won’t do, that’s begging the question (“the injury is particularized because it is paricularized, so standing is conferred”) -what is your injury? Loss of business opportunity? Loss of profits? Company going to get shut down?

And once identified, do you have a constitutional right to not suffer that injury?

Go back to my other example - so do you think that you have the right to challenge a President’s use of drones under Due Process because a non-citizen you do business with got vaporized? Yes or no?

[smh_23]

@thunderbolt23

The driver in your scenario is actually suffering a violation of his constitutional right - directly. He is being subjected to it. As you note, he enjoys constitutional protection against the violation.

As a contractor, what injury do you have that emanates from a violation of the Constitution? Simply saying “particularized” won’t do, that’s begging the question (“the injury is particularized because it is paricularized, so standing is conferred”) -what is your injury? Loss of business opportunity? Loss of profits? Company going to get shut down?

And once identified, do you have a constitutional right to not suffer that injury?

Go back to my other example - so do you think that you have the right to challenge a President’s use of drones under Due Process because a non-citizen you do business with got vaporized? Yes or no?

“Particularized” simply means injurious to the plaintiff in particular, i.e. as a member of a limited class with features salient to the injury, rather than as a member of all taxpayers or citizens. Particularity is certainly satisfied by the hypotheticals we’ve discussed: neither the businessperson nor the daughter is injured in a general sense owing to her being merely a member of the entire class of American citizens, but instead as part of the limited classes of Americans with, respectively, contractual and family ties to habitual Muslim visitors.

Anyway, you’re not addressing the simplest sufficient evidence against your position. Due Process standing turns on a different constellation of particulars and precedent. Let’s stick with what we’re discussing, and let’s stick with a mother who visits annually, because both Tribe and my friend have plainly described this as an injury conferring standing in the particular case (and because I now have a good understanding of these cases, but have not read up on nontaxpayer economic EC standing).

We know that nontaxpayer EC standing can be conferred by way of:

“A change in behavior as a result of the asserted Establishment Clause violation such as … alteration in the challenger’s lifestyle or activities.”

…Now, our American citizen brings her Muslim UK-citizen mother for visits to the United States. Her mother lives in a small flat, is retired, and has time to travel, whereas she has space in her house but a job which makes it difficult for her to travel much. Trump–> Ban → Mom can’t visit.

Now, do we have a change in behavior-activities? Yes. In order to see her mother – a behavior in which she, like most Americans, engages in – she must now leave country, every single time, an onerous burden with measurable alterations to her life.

Is the change in behavior the result of an asserted Establishment Clause violation? Yes. This part has been dealt with ad nauseum, but, briefly: the change in behavior is a direct function of a government policy designed along religious lines and conveying to the state an unconstitutional religious preference.

So: we have a particularized injury (burdensome change in behavior of a citizen as a result of her distinct and personal connection to the matter at hand), and we have an alleged EC violation as cause. Both conditions are satisfied. If something is wrong with this, precisely where is it wrong?

[anon50325502]

@MaximusB

You will not have any liberty if you let reckless immigration continue to fester, particularly from countries that have such a massive difference in ideologies.

You will not have liberty if you allow a populist to increase the power of the federal government through fear mongering and sensationalism either.

[anon50325502]

@therajraj

I’ve said this earlier: start with the 50 Islamic countries. A muslim ban may not be feasible but the 50 Islamic countries is a good starting point. How’s that?

Cutting off 25% of the countries in the world is ludicrous and will have both short and longer-term ramifications that are not good for the United States.

[smh_23]

@smh_23

@thunderbolt23

The driver in your scenario is actually suffering a violation of his constitutional right - directly. He is being subjected to it. As you note, he enjoys constitutional protection against the violation.

As a contractor, what injury do you have that emanates from a violation of the Constitution? Simply saying “particularized” won’t do, that’s begging the question (“the injury is particularized because it is paricularized, so standing is conferred”) -what is your injury? Loss of business opportunity? Loss of profits? Company going to get shut down?

And once identified, do you have a constitutional right to not suffer that injury?

Go back to my other example - so do you think that you have the right to challenge a President’s use of drones under Due Process because a non-citizen you do business with got vaporized? Yes or no?

“Particularized” simply means injurious to the plaintiff in particular, i.e. as a member of a limited class with features salient to the injury, rather than as a member of all taxpayers or citizens. Particularity is certainly satisfied by the hypotheticals we’ve discussed: neither the businessperson nor the daughter is injured in a general sense owing to her being merely a member of the entire class of American citizens, but instead as part of the limited classes of Americans with, respectively, contractual and family ties to habitual Muslim visitors.

Anyway, you’re not addressing the simplest sufficient evidence against your position. Due Process standing turns on a different constellation of particulars and precedent. Let’s stick with what we’re discussing, and let’s stick with a mother who visits annually, because both Tribe and my friend have plainly described this as an injury conferring standing in the particular case (and because I now have a good understanding of these cases, but have not read up on nontaxpayer economic EC standing).

We know that nontaxpayer EC standing can be conferred by way of…

A change in behavior as a result of the asserted Establishment Clause violation such as … alteration in the challenger’s lifestyle or activities

…Now, our American citizen brings her Muslim UK-citizen mother for visits to the United States. Her mother lives in a small flat, is retired, and has time to travel, whereas she has space in her house but a job which makes it difficult for her to travel much. Trump–> Ban → Mom can’t visit.

Now, do we have a change in behavior-activities? Yes. In order to see her mother – a behavior in which she, like most Americans, engages in – she must now leave country, every single time, an onerous burden with measurable alterations to her life.

Is the change in behavior the result of an asserted Establishment Clause violation? Yes. This part has been dealt with ad nauseum, but, briefly: the change in behavior is a direct function of a government policy designed along religious lines and conveying to the state an unconstitutional religious preference.

So: we have a particularized injury (burdensome change in behavior of a citizen as a result of her distinct and personal connection to the matter at hand), and we have an alleged EC violation as cause. Both conditions are satisfied. If something is wrong with this, precisely where is it wrong?

^

RE: the analogy with Due Process, I must be tired, because I don’t know how I missed this, but it doesn’t hold up. Your question was this: “…so do you think that you have the right to challenge a President’s use of drones under Due Process because a non-citizen you do business with got vaporized?” The answer is clearly no, because, unlike with the Muslim ban and the EC, there is no Constitutional violation to be alleged. As explained above, when a citizen suffers injury as a direct result of a policy, such as Trump’s, designed to distribute preference along religious lines, the two ingredients – injury and Constitutional violation without which the injury would not have occurred – are present.

When a drone kills a Pakistani national in Waziristan, there is no connection whatsoever with the Constitution, so, even if you could show injury-in-fact, you would not have a case.

Here is the formula: The federal government enacts a policy in which it explicitly “prefer[s] one religion over another” (alleged Constitutional violation), and an American citizen’s behavior is altered and constrained in a deeply burdensome fashion (injury). Voila: standing. On the other hand, no parallel formula can be constructed vis-a-vis a drone strike, because, even if you could prove injury, you cannot create the alleged constitutional violation from the available material – because there occurs no Constitutional violation from which any kind of injury could causally proceed.

Edited for Clarity.

[therajraj]

@anon50325502

@therajraj

I’ve said this earlier: start with the 50 Islamic countries. A muslim ban may not be feasible but the 50 Islamic countries is a good starting point. How’s that?

Cutting off 25% of the countries in the world is ludicrous and will have both short and longer-term ramifications that are not good for the United States.

Such as???

[thunderbolt23]

@smh_23

“A change in behavior as a result of the asserted Establishment Clause violation such as … alteration in the challenger’s lifestyle or activities.”

Before we go further, you keep identifying this as the standard - is this from a case? I know it’s from a course outline from a law professor summarizing her view on things, but have you seen this (remarkably low) threshold in actual case law?

That would be useful to know before we continue.

[thunderbolt23]

@smh_23

When a drone kills a Pakistani national in Waziristan, there is no connection whatsoever with the Constitution, so, even if you could show injury-in-fact, you would not have a case.

Here is the formula: The federal government enacts a policy in which it explicitly “prefer[s] one religion over another” (alleged Constitutional violation), and an American citizen’s behavior is altered and constrained in a deeply burdensome fashion (injury). Voila: standing. On the other hand, no parallel formula can be constructed vis-a-vis a drone strike, because, even if you could prove injury, you cannot create the alleged constitutional violation from the available material – because there occurs no Constitutional violation from which any kind of injury could causally proceed.

Your answer, again, is “it isn’t the same because it isn’t the same.”

Sure it’s the same. You can’t vaporize someone under the Constitution without Due Proces, same as you can’t deny a person rights under the EC. If the government ruins your ability to maintain a business relationship (with a non-citizen) through an action that would otherwise violate the Constitution, you say there is standing - well, that non-citizen being vaporized accomplishes the same “injury” via a constitutional violation (no more business relationship).

As in:

1. There is a constitutional violation - policy of killing without Due Process.

2. An American alters his/her lifestyle as a result of said violation.

Exact same formula you came up with. So there’s no substantive difference. None. So, do you have standing to sue when your business associate he’s killed by a drone?

[anon50325502]

Lol, Really???

There will be all sorts of economic ramifications without question. Our relationships with the Arab world will completely disintegrate. Even more Muslims will hate us. Relationships with our allies will be strained as well. Lots and lots of both short and longer term ramifications my friend.

[UtahLama]

@anon50325502

Lol, Really???

There will be all sorts of economic ramifications without question. Our relationships with the Arab world will completely disintegrate. Even more Muslims will hate us. Relationships with our allies will be strained as well. Lots and lots of both short and longer term ramifications my friend.

Not that I 100% disagree with you…but what of all the turmoil and crazy shit going on in Europe and the Scandinavian countries that took in huge amounts of muslim immigrants. The no go zones and authorities encouraging women to cover up as to not inflame muslim men (those pesky rapes are the ladies fault clearly).

We had one commenter on here from Austria (dammit, his name eludes me…Swartzenfather maybe?) who said basically it was one big fucking shit show over there.

Many countries are pretty much walking back most of their open doors and admitting they made a mistake…how can we learn from them, and not allow our own standards to be viciously compromised in the name of political correctness I.E. eeerbody gets in.