Legislative intent only comes into play in the courts when the law is unclear. There is nothing unclear about the EO or, for instance, 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
But the divined intent of candidate Trump doesn't create the law. The Executive Order does. Ignoring that fundamental fact will leave you very disappointed when the SC rules on this case.
One of the things that helps you create rational persuasive arguments, is understanding the arguments of the other side. What is the primary rational for the restrictions created by the EO in question? Answer that question and you will see why your argument is poor.
My point is that taxes paid all along the supply chain are passed along to be paid by the consumer. It ends up being significantly more than just the direct gasoline taxes.
It's always the chemicals. Chemicals are bad. Chemicals cause cancer. Just call the chemicals by their common name and then they become natural. Are natural chemicals bad?
Slashdot Mirror
Because religion isn't a criteria used to restrict entry, duh. Like I said, your argument fails.
Legislative intent only comes into play in the courts when the law is unclear. There is nothing unclear about the EO or, for instance, 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
It's hard to accept because campaign statements don't carry the force of law. It's a very simple concept.
They're taking the case because lower court rulings are in conflict with precedent and the law.
The decision was unanimous to end most of the injunction. Three justices dissented, stating that the entire injunction should be lifted.
Except the Administration stated last week that the EO would go into effect 72 hours after the Court decides the case.
But Muslims from 47 odd countries representing hundreds of millions of people had no restrictions at all. Your argument fails.
But the divined intent of candidate Trump doesn't create the law. The Executive Order does. Ignoring that fundamental fact will leave you very disappointed when the SC rules on this case.
The EO doesn't mention religion. That's the answer to your religious test question.
One of the things that helps you create rational persuasive arguments, is understanding the arguments of the other side. What is the primary rational for the restrictions created by the EO in question? Answer that question and you will see why your argument is poor.
Please quote the law you are so certain exists, so we can show you how it doesn't apply.
Non-citizens in many circumstances can have constitutional rights. The descriptive legal term you are looking for is US Persons, and Non-US Persons.
Non-US persons are not under the jurisdiction of the 1st amendment. Also, please quote the portion that strictly forbids religious tests.
Of course I have. It's one of the factors that leads to left wing dictatorships.
I don't think potential means what you think it means.
What are you even talking about? I think what you are describing only exists in sjw fantasy land.
Last time I looked, male was a sex.
Fine. It doesn't generate heat, it only stores and releases it.
My point is that taxes paid all along the supply chain are passed along to be paid by the consumer. It ends up being significantly more than just the direct gasoline taxes.
Taxes at the pump are not the only taxes paid by a consumer on a gallon of gasoline. Keep digging, rube.
It does emit heat, while co2 does not
It's always the chemicals. Chemicals are bad. Chemicals cause cancer. Just call the chemicals by their common name and then they become natural. Are natural chemicals bad?
Where does it get blown to?
I don't post as ac. What you said would actually have been signficant if the OP had said all Democrats want equal results.
It's not a strawman.