Once again - The first judge, Robart, allowed the temporary restraining order because (in part) he felt it likely that the EO would be found to be illegal. Thus he did not decide it WAS illegal; he just decided that there was enough evidence that it was LIKELY illegal, and thus would issue the restraining order to allow time for both parties to present their cases. This is a good result. It prevents the immediate harm to students, family members and other people affected by the ban, while allowing both sides to present their cases to the courts.
If he had special intelligence, his legal team can reveal it to the court in secret. Federal judges are able to review any classified information Trump is privy to. They do it all the time. But Trump's defense team wasn't able to produce any.
That's why I linked to the appellate court documents, the appellate court decision, and quoted so many of the highlights, that I couldn't fit in in one post. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, you can read it yourself.
Would it be correct to state: "The POTUS can issue any order he likes. However if the order is found to be potentially illegal it can be put aside until the question about it's legality can be resolved by those qualified to do so." Is it quite legal for the POTUS to issue orders even if subsequently those orders are ruled as unconstitutional? The POTUS suffers no penalty (except political) due to issuing an order found later to be unconstitutional therefore illegal?
And you related that to US Republicans, which means your "half of Christians worldwide" is irrelevant. The only Christian ideals that matter if the Republicans denounce are those in the US. Since the Pope is not a major influence in US Christianity, Republican denouncement of what the Pope says has little to do with US Christian ideals. But if you're enamored with identity politics, perhaps you assume Christians to be more monolithic than they actually are...even though atheists often tend to cite the diversity among Christian denominations as a criticism. Bare assertion, with all evidence to the contrary. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yet Christians are still largely Republican. Can you account for that discrepancy? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cite your sources for those claims. Was the Bin Laden family guilty of anything? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Was the PBD a credible, immediate threat, or "the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting"." Where was the cover up of known illegal activity? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You've yet to make the case that any of this is expressly or overtly non-Christian. We all know you're being disingenuous when you say "much wiser than me". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Again: Ephesians 4:28 - Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 - For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. Proverbs 13:22 - A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous. Proverbs 13:4 - The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied. Luke 12:13-14 - Someone in the crowd said to Him [Jesus Christ], ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.’ But He said to him, ‘Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?' Matthew 25:27-28 - “Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.” Matthew 20:13-15 - But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Doing good works does not entail indiscriminate charity. Giving charity you know will be spent on drugs and alcohol is only enabling vice (sin). Expense is moving your own goal posts. You claimed a Christian nation must have charitable policies, and when forced charity makes your argument moot, you backpedal to some red herring about expense. Some intellectual honesty please. An atheist's idea of what it is to "actually BE Christian" is caricature, at best. Questionable cause fallacy. The true cause of refugee suffering is not the nations that refuse to admit them. That is simply an appeal to emotion, used to poison the well, in lieu of rational argument. Seems we've done more to bankrupt the US during the last eight years, considering doubling the national debt. Again, you like to talk about what's Christian and American, even though you don't seem too fond of either. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
According to latest reports here, Trump is about to issue another travel ban order to replace his last attempt.
You don't follow too well. He was saying nations should be charitable because Christians, completely ignoring that the Bible doesn't promote forced charity. Yes, pay to Caesar his due, but forced taxation has no bearing on how good a Christian someone may be. I like how Christian Democrat is somehow a distinction when most people in both parties where Christian at that time. Still a dearth of sources...only obfuscated with ridicule. Nowhere does the Bible command forcing others to be charitable.
The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they can’t use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors. The law was soon expanded by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency’s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told us Priebus’ claim is not misleading, but that the law Obama signed doesn’t define the seven countries as the most dangerous in terms of harboring terrorists. There are other countries where terrorists are active but could have been left off the Obama list for other reasons, he said. There are countries, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and others, where militants have significant space to operate, but there could be a variety of reasons why they were not included with countries where travel without visas is restricted by Obama law, he said. For instance, the U.S. government has a delicate relationship with the Pakistani government and there might be a desire on the part of the United States not to restrict travel from people in certain countries. Two notes before we close that don’t directly bear on Priebus’ claim, but shed light on the seven countries: Iran (added in 1984), Sudan (1993) and Syria (1979) are the only countries on the U.S. State Department’s list of "state sponsors of terrorism." They were determined by the secretary of state to have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism." Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen are on the State Department’s list of "terrorist safe havens" -- where terrorists operate "in relative security." But nine other countries or regions are on the safe havens list, too. - http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/
Yes Silly question How would you know issued order would be subsequently found unconstitutional? Crystal Ball? Open up his chakras? Political would be enough
No one is forced to be Christian either. How ever to be Christian, charity is a core tenant. Claiming to be Christian and not be charitable is a contradiction, therefore a false claim.
Indiscriminate charity is not a Christian tenet (what's a "core tenant"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!).
Although I do not wish to speak for Billvon it seems that the main point that he was attempting to make is essentially what being an " unforced" Christian means according to the Gospels. Charity is core tenet.
Yes and no. The President has certain responsibilities regarding immigration so he can issue orders there and if they appear to be illegal there can be an injunction as you described. He can't issue an order regarding any subject. He can't pass laws, appropriate money etc as that is the job of Congress. If you just want to play word games, sure, he could try to do anything until it was found to be illegal but so could you. So, the actual answer is "no" he can't issue just any executive order that he wishes to.
Christianity also promotes the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated. It is a maxim of altruism seen in many human religions and human cultures.[1][2] The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:
Let's face it Trump isn't fit to be President. He is another Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) who was also unfit to be President.
That's easy. But it's not complimentary to self-described "Christians". Most people in both Parties still are Christian. It wasn't a distinction, it was a reminder - you were ascribing racism to Democrats and Christianity to Republicans as if they were separated, and I am reminding you that the worst of the racists and the most fundamentalist of the Christians are all together and mostly Republicans now, steady since 1980. The government policies they favor do. In this case, it often is - the US is and has been recently among the major creators of refugees in this world. That was by making war, which created these refugees. And not taxing the rich to pay for it.
I knew that tick for me √ I did not know that cross for me X Another thing I did not know another cross for me X Indiscriminate charity is not a Christian tenet It's not? Another thing I did not know what's a "core tenant"? I don't know and thank you for asking Another thing I did not know but now hope to learn Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Was thinking about asking what would it be like to be a forced christian but if I did ask I doubt if I would get any answer
God either encourages or demands charity from his followers, depending on which mouth, or which side of that mouth he’s speaking from. Hebrews 13:16 - Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. Deuteronomy 15:7-11 - “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’+ Matthew 5:42 - Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Giving charity to the disadvantaged and persecuted is enabling vice?
