Discussion for article #243591
āItās a violation of our Constitution, but it also undermines the
character of our nation," she told reporters, as quoted by the Des
Moines Register. "We stand for religious liberty.ā
ā¦
You stated the obvious. Now go away Carly
And she waited two days to do so before she decided which side she was on - no profile in courage is Carly.
Wow - I had her pegged as gunning for the VP slot on Trumpās ticket. I guess heās too much, even for someone of her moral caliber.
And so now I announce my intention to make it Constitutional
I suppose her alternative would be to outsource refugees to China and India.
Not much of an admonition coming from the purveyor of the āPP sells baby partsā hoax.
1 Like
We stand for religious liberty.
Your religion has motivated you to take liberties with the truth, Iāll grant, but that isnāt the same thing.
Whether the White House or Fiorina says it, I donāt believe immigration bans are unconstitutional. The USA has a long history of banning immigrant groups, and unless mistaken, I see no relevant passage in the constitution.
Who is this woman and what has she done with Carly Fiorina?
Nimble little minx, isnāt she?
Iām laughing at how that actually describes Fiorina! HA
Yikes that picture of herā¦am I the only one with his mind in the gutter?
Yes, you are. That microphone looks nothing like a corndog.
According to an article in todayās NYT, that appears to be correct. The President actually has broad discretion to restrict immigration, by any criteria he deems necessary; and immigrants before they get here have no constitutional protection. So Trumpsās proposed ban may be vile, disgusting, hateful, bigoted, and counter-productive; but the one thing it isnāt is unconstitutional.
It figures - even when Carly finally gets around to saying something that sounds reasonable, she still manages to get it wrong.
I was thought it looked like a tootsie pop silly! Corn dogs donāt have a big knob at the top.
Speaking of corn dogs, did you hear about the two russians that got to America for the first time and decided to try a hot dog. The first one looked at his then turned to his friend and asked, āwhat part of the dog did you getā?
As one TPM commenter pointed out on another subject, the SCOTUS 1947 decision Everson v. Board of Education, comes closest to a constitution interpretation of immigration restriction, but as you/NYT point out, it probably does not apply to non-citizens:
āThe āestablishment of religionā clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.ā