2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Unconstitutional or Too Constitutional to Question?

Reader comment on item: Trump: You Should Ban Islamists, Not Muslims

Submitted by TL Winslow (United States), Dec 11, 2015 at 16:53

A ban on Muslim entry into the U.S. would be unconstitutional because of this and that clause in the Bill of Rights? Sorry, but the leftist takeover of the U.S. isn't complete, and the Constitution still stands, all of it. From Day One, Congress has had the absolute power to control entry into the U.S. of anybody it deems a threat to national security, and since aliens are citizens of a foreign nation who are living outsideof our borders the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. That's why Trump said it's about national security, not religion.

You're a scholar of what? It can't be the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court already admitted it in 1952 in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy when a lawsuit was brought by a Commie who was being deported. I don't think that arguing that Commies are atheists, and atheism is a religion would have won any brownie points here. The court said that they don't even have the power to look over Congress' shoulder and question their motives, because their power to protect national security is absolute. Too bad for Obama and other leftists, even if they pack the court and it tries not only reviewing but telling Congress who they can and can't admit, they will likely respond by impeaching the robed bums for treason. Powers are powers, and they were given to the federal govt. by the states, who reserve all other powers to themselves. The 14th Amendment is also irrelevent. The Supreme Court can review a law passed to see if it's constitutional, amendments included, but when Congress passes a law regarding national security, nobody can mess with it because the People acting through their reps have an absolute right to defend their security.

"One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court." (Felix Frankfurter).

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Harisiades_v._Shaughnessy_%26_Mascitti/Opinion_of_the_Court

As to Trump, Congress still has all the power, but it passed laws giving the president temporary emergency powers, so as president he can use them to temporarily ban Muslims from entry by citing national security. Of course to make it permanent it will take Congress passing a law, but when they have spoken the Supreme Court can stuff it. There are a few more checks and balances because if a new president is sworn in in time, he can veto the law and play footsie that way. And as Pres. Obama has shown with Mexican illegal immigrants, a president can just plain refuse to enforce laws on the books and play chicken with impeachment himself. This is how we do it, introducing the Dish 2-year priceline.

As to banning only Islamists, how would this get around the Bill of Rights if being only Muslim was enough in itself? By quoting St. Obama that Islamists aren't real Muslims, what they call the No True Scotsman Fallacy? Sorry, the same leftist lawyers backing Obama one way would fight the other way as long as it weakened the U.S., and we all know it. Leftists want millions of Muslims to flood the U.S. until it hasn't got the strength to deport an old lady in a wheelchair, and they don't consider the U.S. govt. to be a permanent obstacle. They're already winning bigtime in Europe, and making big progress in Canada, what a mess Canadastan can make of our continent, a 2nd pesky Mexico in the north.

Only the U.S. stands as the last hope of mankind for freedom. But the Statue of Liberty? Sorry, it stands, not for weakness and inability to reject undesirable immigrants, but for a shining island of free people who will fight to keep themselves free, and to reserve their right to admit only those who will assimilate into the body politic without attempting to overthrow its Constitution. Americans are currently ignoramuses about Islam, but when they learn the truth I believe they will make Congress close the gates to all who thump the Quran, because it's Allah himself who is our archenemy, demanding that all Muslims work to destroy our liberty and make us slaves to him and his slave religion, starting with making Islam the official religion like in the Muslim World. In other words, all Muslims whether Islamist, jihadist, or as assimilated as Madonna bring a little bit of the Muslim World with them, and should never have been allowed to enter unless they first apostasized and burned the bridges forever by subjecting themselves to a death sentence. How two-faced to pretend to assimilate while handing the Quran to their kids to manufacture good little Maj. Nidal Hassans. So Trump's plan is right-on. GO TRUMP.

Speaking of presidents ignoring Congress' laws, what about the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars immigration of any member of an org. devoted to violent overthrow of the Constitution. That's just what the Muslim Ummah IS, right? It's about the org. not individuals, sorry Dr. Oz. Obama's just a hard-working guy who's up at 7 am and got his work ethic from watching his Commie dad grind all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Daniel Pipes replies:

I based my assertion about Trump's idea being unconstitutional not on my own views of the constitution but on an Associated Press report, "Legal Experts Agree: Trump's Proposal Unconstitutional," http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/12/08/us/politics/ap-us-gop-2016-trump-is-it-legal.html?_r=1​. I linked to this article in the text, so you should have seen it for yourself.

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Unconstitutional or Too Constitutional to Question? by TL Winslow

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)