Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Are you the exception?  'Cuz otherwise, we've all just got opinions and introducing the Genetic Fallacy doesn't really get us anywhere. 

I mean what I said earlier about this being a strange hill to die on.  This has nothing to do with the legality of the issue, but one political group opened up the border in ways we've never seen, to effects we've never seen, and did so by a dereliction of duty to protect our borders.  Dereliction of duty is not following the law.  Now we get up in arms about the other party supposedly not following the law to undo the damage. 

K.

And that's assuming that the law is not being followed here--which as of yet, no one has convinced me. 

Their mission is explicitly anti-politicized judiciary.  They support interpreting the Constitution based on the usual standards of statutory interpretation rather than based on some vague notions of progressivism. 

For the non-lawyers here, I'll explain the issue:
When you go to law school you learn a host of rules of statutory and contractual interpretation, some examples are:

• The plain meaning rule - what is the plain meaning of the text?
• Intent of the drafters - what did the parties intend? 
• Construction against the drafter - This is why your insurance policy is 900 pages long.  There is a standard that says that if one side drafted the contract, any ambiguities are resolved against that party.  Thus, Insurance Companies (which draft their policies) end up making them 900 pages long in order to eliminate any ambiguities. 

For Conservatives (Federalist Society) these very same rules apply to the Constitution.  Originalists, we are called, because we assert that the Constitution should be interpreted as originally intended. 

This is where it gets very strange.  Liberals generally believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and thus that the normal rules of interpretation should not apply and instead the Constitution simply says whatever they want it to say.  Ie, they like to make it up as they go along. 

Making up new Constitution as they go along has gotten us into a whole lot of problems that would have been avoided if we had simply followed the law. 

Didn’t know you were a lawyer.

But I suppose if the argument is the rights in the constitution weren’t meant to be interpreted as much of rights at all, which has kind of been a theme in your posting, then it’s certainly been an interesting ride, and now we can all go back to trusting the government deeply.

(Originalism in practice also seems to be finding the older documents that justify the writer’s political motives. Just some cute branding, like a few other things)

I would argue yes.  I was thinking through potential loop holes where ISIS would not fall under the act, but they would definitely fall under it IMO.

As ISIS is not a government nor a country yet the act would apply to them, the reason must be because they are designated a terrorist organization. Would that be the case?