3 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Congress cannot alter the Bill of Rights; but this shouldn't be a major problem for our President

Reader comment on item: Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting
in response to reader comment: Contemplating Amendment XXVIII to the USA Constitution

Submitted by Michael S, Jan 31, 2017 at 08:03

Hi, Robert

I have consistently advocated, that the Supreme Court Justices rule based on the ORIGINAL intent of articles of the Constitution. This is how Justice Scalia judged matters, sometimes to the dismay of Conservatives (though much more, to the angst of Leftists). Concerning the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights, which reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

it should be noted that the founding fathers DID consider Islam to be a "religion". It is therefore protected under this amendment (and Bill of Rights amendments cannot be changed). That pretty much puts a kibosh on Congress "delisting" Muslims as members of a religion.

The President, therefore, should and probably will fend off attacks from the Supreme Court and elsewhere, using different tactics. I would think he will do so along the lines of, "The Christians of Syria pose no credible risk to the US (but Syrian Muslims do); and those Christians qualify as refugees as a group, because they are targeted by the Muslim terrorists in Syria and Iraq. That is a matter of common sense, something Scalia was very good at; and I would like his successor to be likewise sensible.

I just came upon something interesting on WND:

"The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 was not intended to devalue Christianity's historical contribution to the founding of America, but rather it was an attempt to negotiate with Muslims using phraseology which would oblige them to honor the treaty.

"With that background, the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli was: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of the Musselmen –, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.""

-- http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/was-america-founded-on-christian-religion/

If you read the context, you can see:

1. the President Jefferson was very careful to note that the US was not acting, in making a treaty with the Muslim pirates of Algeria, as a RELIGIOUS entity; but as a secular state, and

2. this implicitly recognized the "Musselmen" as a religion -- while at the same time, he understood fully well that the "Mehomitan nation" of Algiers, though obvioulsy a religious entity, was also a political entity.

It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. President Trump needs to deal with this matter artfully, as Jefferson dealt with a similar matter. This isn't the first time his lawyers have had to bat for him in court, so I think he'll do just fine.

Notice that the Establishment Clause says nothing against Trump's barring immigration from Syria; because the US has a long history of setting immigration policy based on country of origin. What the Supreme Court MIGHT do, however, if it is wrong-headed enough, is condemn innocent Syrian Christians to slaughter by their Muslim countrymen. Either way, Donald Trump will probably come out of this smelling like a rose; but the Christians will suffer.

Perhaps "making Christians suffer" is the intent of Trump's enemies, and has been all along (In my opinion, I needn't have said "perhaps"). These people are not fighting Donald Trump; they are fighting the God of Israel, and they will ultimately lose.

Shalom shalom :-)

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".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Congress cannot alter the Bill of Rights; but this shouldn't be a major problem for our President by Michael S

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

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.)