Could it be that the Hawaiian earthquakes have jostled loose the brains of lawyers and judges in the 50th State? It appears so. The latest attempt by the Soros shadow revolution has pushed the suspension of disbelief to its absolute limits. A lawyer representing the State of Hawaii has appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circus to argue an unbelievable set of parameters that would allow President Trump to get his executive order through their court and into the current lexicon of law.
In his arguments, Neal Katyal stated today that the collection of such data as outlined by the Executive Order 13780 contravenes the Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Katyal’s argument is, in essence, saying that Trump cannot have his EO 13780 passed simply due to the First Amendment of the Constitution (the Establishment Clause) because Congress is not allowed to pass a law that “creates or supports” a religion. This is a very important point about the First Amendment that Leftists always use to attempt to muddy up the waters, as it were, in the argument regarding Church and State.
This Establishment Clause is one that disallows Congress from passing a law that “pushes their created or supported” religion on the public. When it was written, it was specifically geared toward the King of England when he was insisting that everyone be attached to the Catholic religion. The founders feared that a new country’s leader may do the same with this or another religion and wrote this amendment precisely for the reason of avoiding a government-promoted religion.
Katyal is insisting on the Liberal slant of the First Amendment, that Trump (through this Executive Order) is attempting to coerce Congress into passing this law which then “forces” the public to follow a certain religion. There is no law that forbids the mixing or intermingling of Church and State, first of all. It’s an old fallacy that has been pushed by the modern Leftists to confuse people into believing that it is. This is crux of this lawyer’s complaint against the Executive Order. Unfortunately, in his efforts to prove that this Executive Order is “establishing” a religion, Katyal is actually arguing the Conservative point of view. His attempts to show a link between Trump saying he doesn’t want citizens of this country exposed to violence perpetrated by some immigrants to the specific religious edicts of Islam that promote such violence is something that Leftists have been fooled into admitting by a very shrewd Executive Order.
Katyal goes one step farther in insisting that that a particular brutal religious practice of Islam is in fact their religion, something they’ve been vehemently opposing since day one of the establishment of the “religion of peace” lie.
Minion
What the hell is this idiot allocating. Murder because of religious beliefs should be ok in. USA. I believe my country has lost its mind that this c**p is even debatable.
What honor is there in killing??? If there is, I hope that if starts with you. You inbred fucker!!
Lawyers are good at finding loop holes or twist things around. But killing in a religion does not make any sense at all. All I know is our founders and authors of the constitution were guided by the hand of the Lord. Also in 1950 (not sure of the exact year)Sharia Law was prohibited in the United States. I studied that when I was studying to became a citizen of this country. In my opinion there is no such thing as honor killing. It’s murder!
So…Honor Killings, Beheading, Female Genital Mutilation, Rape of Non Belivers, Brutal Murders of Perceived Homosexuals, Oprression of Women and Children, Child Brides…..these and more all characters of ISLAM. All illegal in the US. So…why in the hell are these people in my country? So…there is a shame game 9f Islamophobia. Why don’t we start a shame game of ISLAM, and send a very direct clear message that they do not belong here…period. Send them to Muslim countries now! All of them. I don’t care what they claim they believe. That 8s what their evil ideology allows. Denounce all the practices or get the hell out.
This is Obama’s legacy!
Idiot
Can you believe this c**p?
Hiding behind the 1st Amendment HAPPENS once the REST of the Constitution IS cleared.
The ONLY Constitutional political ideology IS Republican AS indicated in Article IV Section 4 AND Republican ISN’T by the 1st Amendment.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”
Republican, just like “Democrat”, CAN be an adjective or noun; a noun is a PERSON, place, or thing (Ideology, Religion, Party); a person HAS an Ideology.
Our founding fathers WERE smart BECAUSE to REMOVE Republican from the Constitution REQUIRES a Constitutional Amendment OR a Civil War WHERE the Victor WILL determine to KEEP or REWRITE a NEW Constitution.
Taken from http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/4/essays/128/guarantee-clause
“However, there was a consensus as to three criteria of republicanism, the lack of any of which would render a government un-republican.
The first of these criteria was popular rule. The Founders believed that for government to be republican, political decisions had to be made by a majority (or in some cases, a plurality) of voting citizens. The citizenry might act either directly or through elected representatives. Either way, republican government was government accountable to the citizenry. To a generation immersed in Latin learning and looking to pre-imperial Rome for inspiration, a republic was very much res publica—the people’s affair.
The second required element of republican government was that there be no monarch. The participants in the constitutional debates believed that monarchy, even constitutional monarchy, was inconsistent with republican government. In fact, when Alexander Hamilton proposed a President with lifetime tenure, the delegates so disagreed that they did not even take the time to respond.
The third criterion for a republic was the rule of law. Ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, extreme debtor-relief measures—most kinds of retroactive legislation, for example, were deemed inconsistent with the rule of law, and therefore un-republican.”
Not in U S A if you want them in Hawaii we’ll be more than happy to send you several thousand to handle any way you want.