> You're completely right. The Constitution does give the > President virtually unfettered power in this area. Just > about the only thing that fetters the President's power > is the Constitution itself.
So quote me the article and section of the Constitution that fetters this particular grant of executive power.
> You mean like how Trump tried to put a limit on > immigration based on religion?
Which he didn't actually do.
Non-Muslims from the listed countries were also barred from entry.
And Muslims from other countries not on the list were not barred from entry.
Even so, past presidents have banned immigration from select majority-Muslim countries before and not been overruled by the courts. It seems that any commonly accepted power of the presidency only becomes unconstitutional the moment Trump exercises it.
> The Constitution protects both People (everywhere)
No, it doesn't. It protects American citizens both domestically and abroad with regard to actions by the US government, and it protects non-citizens when they are on American soil. The Constitution does *not* apply to or protect foreign nationals in foreign countries.
In other words, all six billion people in Earth do not have a due process right to emigrate to the US.
> Many people feel strongly -- as I do -- that being a country that is welcoming to immigrants is an important part of being American.
That's all well and good, but your feelz about the true spirit of America doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives the president virtually unfettered power to determine the limits of foreign immigration into the US. This has been unquestioned for the 200+ years of this nation's existence, until Trump took office, then suddenly everyone from state and local governments to tech companies think they have a legal check on executive authority in this area.
> The same reasons you aren't allowed to own certain guns > with appropriate permits.
If I want to allow myself to be observed, that's my business, not the government's. Analogies to guns are logically invalid.
A more appropriate analogy would be the German government ordering all citizens to close their window blinds every night so no one can see (spy) them in their homes. If the homeowner doesn't care if people can see him watching TV or eating dinner from the street, why is it the government's business to dictate otherwise?
> This doesn't remove it's capability of being an espionage > device the same way a gun without bullets can be used to > kill people once you find the right bullets.
Yeah, because evil cyber hackers with backpacks full of AAA batteries are gonna be breaking into suburban homes and covertly refilling the empty battery slots of little girls' dolls so that they can spy on the moppet's daily tea party with Mr. Bear and Mrs. Frog.
I haven't followed this story closely enough to know whether the artist still retains ownership of the bull, but if he does, and he's this butthurt over the placement of the girl, he should just remove the bull altogether-- take his ball (bull) and go home-- which would completely undermine the statue of the girl, because now she's fearlessly facing down nothing.
> I really fail to see how asset forfeiture ever passed > constitutional muster. The complete lack of due process > involved just makes the fact that anyone with more than > two brain cells to rub together would defend it on > constitutional grounds.
I've never understood it, either. Bad precedent was set back in the 1700 and 1800s when they used it to seize the assets of pirates on the high seas. Somehow it grew from that foundation into some sheriff on the side of road in Alabama stealing all your cash from you.
> The other alternative would be to pull themselves out of > the European market
That may be true for companies like Apple who sell physical products and therefore need a physical presence in France, but companies like Google and Twitter and Facebook can continue to do business in Europe without actually being *in* Europe, and therefore wouldn't have to obey any of these new and exciting laws that are being proposed.
The only recourse European lawmakers would have against them is to block access to their services from within their jurisdiction. But turning off Google to all their citizens, who not only use the search engine, but in many instances have built entire businesses and livelihoods around Google's suite of cloud-based products, could come with serious political blowback for the lawmakers who choose to take that step.
> She may have been given immunity from prosecution in exchange for her > testimony
For what purpose? Immunity is given to lesser offenders in order to catch the bigger fish. These are two equal-sized fishes. There's no point to immunity.
As a minor, he's also a victim of statutory rape every bit as much as she is. He'll have a helluva due process claim against the government if they give his assaulter immunity from prosecution for assaulting him, the victim, for doing nothing more than confessing to her own crime.