Federal Judge HALTS new travel ban nationwide

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What was it struck down for? Violation of the Zeroth Amendment?

http://www.unz.com/isteve/its-right-there-in-the-zeroth-amendment/

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

This judge should be impeached for violation of the negative second amendment.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Can anybody explain to a layman like me why American law (equal protection clause) would apply to foreigners?

-Google "Zeroth Amendment". Very commonly believed to be part of the Constitution by NYT's core audience.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

If Trump were serious about this, Saudi Arabia would be at the top of the list. This is a joke.

-No doubt. But the reasoning behind the blocking of the ban is jokier, still.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Oh if right-wingers only looked at data showing that they are more dangerous and violent statistically in America then these " dangerous" Muslims... I'm not holding my breath on that.

-I've looked at the data, and Muslims commit over 20x more terrorist attacks per capita than ordinary Americans.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Having a glance through the judgement it all seems to be based on the idea that non resident aliens have rights under the constitution, which is contrary to all prior law. He talks about a Muslim man who is being descriminated against in his 'right to associate with family members oversees'. Has anyone ever heard of this 'right' before or did the judge just pull it out of his arse? People have pointed out that as recently as last year the Supreme Court confirmed that First Amendment applies to citizens only and yet one District Judge proclaims it applies to the entire planet because it suits his social justice ideology and never mind the law.

Except that isn't what the decision is about, and that isn't the legal reasoning the judge employed. You're mixing up the opinion's discussion of standing with the legal reasoning as to why the EO is (likely) unconstitutional. There are two plaintiffs in this suit. One is the state of Hawaii. The other is Dr. Elshikh. Dr. Elshikh is an American citizen. To bring suit, he must show that he has suffered a concrete injury from the government's executive order. The injury that he has suffered is the EO interferes with his ability to associate with family members who will now be denied entry to the U.S. You are correct that there is no constitutional right to visitation by non-citizen family members. But it is not this injury in and of itself that entitles Dr. Elshikh to relief. The injury just allows Dr. Elshikh to bring suit against the government. What entitles Dr. Elshikh to relief is the fact that his injury results from the government's unconstitutional conduct.

The court says the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits on their claim that the EO violates the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is not merely a grant rights to individual U.S. citizens, but rather an absolute limitation on what the federal government may do. The government may not establish religious tests. Period. Nothing in the first amendment or in any case law makes any exception for matters of immigration. The fact that non-citizens abroad have no constitutional right to challenge an unconstitutional immigration measure is irrelevant because here we have parties in the U.S. with proper standing to challenge the EO.

-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2017/266447.htm

Hm...