Trump’s Muslim Ban Un-Constitutional

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2011
76,393
35,975
2,290
In a Republic, actually
‘While the text of the Muslim ban “speaks with vague words of national security,” the court recognized that in context it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The ban’s message of religious condemnation is contrary to the bedrock constitutional requirement that the government remain neutral among religions: “When the government chooses sides on religious issues, the inevitable result is hatred, disrespect and even contempt towards those who fall on the wrong side of the line.”
[…]
One of the members of the court, Judge Wynn, pointed out the historical context. “We have matured from the lessons learned by past experiences documented, for example, in Dred Scott and Korematsu,” he explained, referring to the shameful decisions permitting slavery and Japanese internment. “Laid bare,” Judge Wynn explained, “this Executive Order is no more than what the President promised before and after his election: naked invidious discrimination against Muslims.”

And that is unconstitutional.’

The Muslim Ban ‘Drips With Religious Intolerance, Animus, and Discrimination,’ Rules Federal Appeals Court

Trump’s Muslim ban violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:

“EO-2 cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking it to the animus that inspired it. In light of this, we find that the reasonable observer would likely conclude that EO-2’s primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs. We therefore find that EO-2 likely fails Lemon’s purpose prong in violation of the Establishment Clause.22 Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.”

http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf

The purpose of the Constitution and its case law is to protect persons from the unwarranted fear, bigotry, and hate that often manifests in government, in this case the unwarranted fear, bigotry, and hate exhibited by Trump and most of his supporters with regard to Muslims.

Being Muslim does not ‘predispose’ one to ‘terrorism,’ Islam is not a ‘terrorist religion,’ and Trump’s effort to ban Muslims from entering the county is devoid of merit, a ridiculous fallacy, and the consequence of Trump’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
 
SCOTUS will overturn the rulings. "At his discretion" carries all legal authority.
 
Amazing how easy it is to slowly invalidate the constitution for some national security. All the controllers of the government need to do is to generate more Muslim attacks.

And the Muslim ban is not a Muslim ban, it is a ban on selected 5 small nations plus Iran. It is just that Iran bit that causes this to even be news.
 
But that’s not how the Law of Rule works. Institutions, particularly ones so pompous as the court, will always accumulate as much power as inattentive citizens fail to deny them. Obedience inspires tyranny. And so if the people keep obeying, one may be assured the court will keep ruling. That what the court is ruling upon falls completely beyond its purview has become so obvious even some its own members are remarking. Writing in sheepish embarrassment for the majority opinion, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote that Supreme Court precedent required the court to consider the order “on its face.” Looked at that way, the executive order “is entirely without constitutional fault.”

Of course it’s without constitutional fault. Establishing sources and flows of migration is an entirely political exercise under the responsibility of political actors. Libyans have no constitutional right to come here, no matter how irreparably harmful their absence may seem to those ensconced far from their blast radius. At this point the court could just as well cite prospective dripping intolerance as cause to relieve the president of all his executive powers. Otherwise they are implying he’s a kind and considerate man when doing what they like, but suddenly nefarious when he doesn’t. That’s the implicit logic of their stance, but only Anthony Kennedy can make it official. In the meantime I’d try to keep a better attitude while reading here if I were you. Smile When You Say That, Pilgrim
 
"Unwarranted" fear? When cancer starts eating away at your lungs, is your fear of the consequences "unwarranted"?

By all means, let's protect religious freedom by importing mass numbers who are out to destroy the very notion. What utter stupidity.
 
Say you have a bag of M&M's. You know that in the bag there are 3-4 that are deadly poison. You gonna eat 'em?

Illegals/refugees same-same. In the mad age in which we live, open borders are insane, porous borders plain stupid.

Discrimination is a good thing to practice.
 
Say you have a bag of M&M's. You know that in the bag there are 3-4 that are deadly poison. You gonna eat 'em?

Illegals/refugees same-same. In the mad age in which we live, open borders are insane, porous borders plain stupid.

Discrimination is a good thing to practice.

My own analogy is that you have your toddler playing in the back yard and there is a large group of dogs just beyond the fence. You want the toddler to become familiar with dogs, so which do you let in -- the golden retriever wagging its tail, or the pit bull snarling and foaming at the mouth?

When some brainwashed numb nuts reminds you that not all pit bulls are dangerous, they are just acting as complete hypocrites. It is easy for them to be callous when it is somebody else's kid, just as surely as it is easy for them to condemn their fellow Americans to death because they have little chance of being the victim of Islamic terrorism, themselves. They know that somebody will die, but they just don't care. Their need to receive props from their mindless little peeps for their political correctness outweighs their concern for their fellow Americans (or French or Brits or Swedes).
 
the Constitution doesn't apply to people outside the country. international relations is actually one of the reasons the federal government was created.
100% Constitutional
 
SCOTUS will overturn the rulings. "At his discretion" carries all legal authority.
Trump's illegal order was supposed to last 2 months. It's been way longer than that. You think the SC will still care? Has Trump "figured out what the hell is going on" in that time? :laugh:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top