This is one of the arguments in defence of the indefensible act of banning people from 7 randomly chosen Muslim countries the right is trying to spread now. As usual though most of it's not actually true and the rest is spin.
I'll now go through it sentence by sentence to show this:
"I'd like to suggest you all visit the WH site and actually read what the order says, before making statements about how horrible the things it doesn't actually say are."
No one will find anything differently in reading the actual order - this is just a way of trying to avoid the questions of the consequences of the order. The exact wording of the order is not in question and has no importance - it's the consequences of it's that's the problem of course.
"Then look up precedent cases, because it's entirely constitutional and has been done repeatedly, even during the last administration."
Note that MichaelZWilliamson himself can't name an actual precedent - his only goal here is to spread the impression that there are relevant precedent. But there isn't - that's a complete lie. If he or anyone else actually bothers enough to cite a specific precedent they believe is relevant I will happily show why it isn't.
I should add here that both I and MichaelZWilliamson are talking about precedents that SUPPORTS Trumps order. Precedents can of course also be bad precedents - things that have happened before but are now wildly considerd to be an embarrasment or even shame to the nation. So the fact that there may be precedents for something isn't necessarily a good thing - but we'll get to that if MichaelZWilliamson or anyone else provides an example of a precedent they think supports Trumps ban.
That's how a serious discussion works, whilst what MichaelZWilliamson's doing here is just spreading baseless opinions without any proof what so ever.
Claiming something is "entirely constitution" also proves nothing - it's an opinion he holds, nothing more. So far several American judges have struck down parts of Trumps order as unlawful and there will be many, many more court challenges before all is said and done. Because whether MichaelZWilliamson, Trump or any other right-winger claims this order is "entirely constitutional" or not doesn't matter one bit - they don't get to decide what is or isn't constitutional - that's up to the courts.
"Then, whenever you hear, "Trump did X!" actually look up the proposal, act, law, etc, and then check to see if it's been done before."
Here he's just repeating the same opinion he stated in the last sentence. No proof, no facts - only his personal opinion that proves nothing. His goal is to put the responsibility of proving him wrong on you, the reader. When it's of course actually HIS job to provide the proof for the claims he make.
But he's lazy or knows he can't prove what he claims so he tries to pretend it's your job of disproving him - otherwise you must accept his word.
But this is of course not true - it's always the one making the claim that bears the responsibility to prove it.
"I've extended this courtesy to every president, even ones I don't like, and in most cases, their acts are well within executive power, with precedent, and well documented."
I don't for a minute believe he did based on the dishonest way he's arguing here. You might chose to believe him on this point if you want but it's still proof of anything - just more empty words.
"This will enable a more pleasant, informed, useful discussion that doesn't resemble a bunch of monkeys at the zoo."
After having offered no proof but lots of opinions and tried to put the burden of disproving his opinions on you, the reader, he ends by implying that anyone that doesn't believe his empty words don't want a useful discussion and resembles a bunch of monkeys at the zoo.
In other word - believe what I claim without any proof or you're a stupid monkey.
Really convincing "argument" there...
EDIT: A federal judge just blocked Trups executive order nationwide, on the grounds that it may violate the constitution.
As I said in my post above - don't belive anyone who claims something is or isn't constitutional before the courts have ruled on the issue.
0
@MichaelZWilliamson
This is one of the arguments in defence of the indefensible act of banning people from 7 randomly chosen Muslim countries the right is trying to spread now. As usual though most of it's not actually true and the rest is spin.
I'll now go through it sentence by sentence to show this:
"I'd like to suggest you all visit the WH site and actually read what the order says, before making statements about how horrible the things it doesn't actually say are."
No one will find anything differently in reading the actual order - this is just a way of trying to avoid the questions of the consequences of the order. The exact wording of the order is not in question and has no importance - it's the consequences of it's that's the problem of course.
"Then look up precedent cases, because it's entirely constitutional and has been done repeatedly, even during the last administration."
Note that MichaelZWilliamson himself can't name an actual precedent - his only goal here is to spread the impression that there are relevant precedent. But there isn't - that's a complete lie. If he or anyone else actually bothers enough to cite a specific precedent they believe is relevant I will happily show why it isn't.
I should add here that both I and MichaelZWilliamson are talking about precedents that SUPPORTS Trumps order. Precedents can of course also be bad precedents - things that have happened before but are now wildly considerd to be an embarrasment or even shame to the nation. So the fact that there may be precedents for something isn't necessarily a good thing - but we'll get to that if MichaelZWilliamson or anyone else provides an example of a precedent they think supports Trumps ban.
That's how a serious discussion works, whilst what MichaelZWilliamson's doing here is just spreading baseless opinions without any proof what so ever.
Claiming something is "entirely constitution" also proves nothing - it's an opinion he holds, nothing more. So far several American judges have struck down parts of Trumps order as unlawful and there will be many, many more court challenges before all is said and done. Because whether MichaelZWilliamson, Trump or any other right-winger claims this order is "entirely constitutional" or not doesn't matter one bit - they don't get to decide what is or isn't constitutional - that's up to the courts.
"Then, whenever you hear, "Trump did X!" actually look up the proposal, act, law, etc, and then check to see if it's been done before."
Here he's just repeating the same opinion he stated in the last sentence. No proof, no facts - only his personal opinion that proves nothing. His goal is to put the responsibility of proving him wrong on you, the reader. When it's of course actually HIS job to provide the proof for the claims he make.
But he's lazy or knows he can't prove what he claims so he tries to pretend it's your job of disproving him - otherwise you must accept his word.
But this is of course not true - it's always the one making the claim that bears the responsibility to prove it.
"I've extended this courtesy to every president, even ones I don't like, and in most cases, their acts are well within executive power, with precedent, and well documented."
I don't for a minute believe he did based on the dishonest way he's arguing here. You might chose to believe him on this point if you want but it's still proof of anything - just more empty words.
"This will enable a more pleasant, informed, useful discussion that doesn't resemble a bunch of monkeys at the zoo."
After having offered no proof but lots of opinions and tried to put the burden of disproving his opinions on you, the reader, he ends by implying that anyone that doesn't believe his empty words don't want a useful discussion and resembles a bunch of monkeys at the zoo.
In other word - believe what I claim without any proof or you're a stupid monkey.
Really convincing "argument" there...
EDIT: A federal judge just blocked Trups executive order nationwide, on the grounds that it may violate the constitution.
As I said in my post above - don't belive anyone who claims something is or isn't constitutional before the courts have ruled on the issue.