I link to anything that a minimally intelligent poster would not already know. No such information appeared in my thorough refutation of your Trumpian fantasy. You need me to show you that the Constitution takes supremacy over statute? Sorry, I don’t teach basic math. The SCOTUS’s primary concern throughout American history has involved deciding whether some or another law contravenes any provision of the Constitution / Bill of Rights. You need me to show you that religious tests for office violate the Establishment Clause? Again, sorry, I don’t teach basic math. What, exactly, did you doubt, anyway?
As for the Constitutionality of various undeclared wars and authorized military actions, I’m not going to get into such a complex – I promise you that it’s complex – problem here, because it’s a red herring. That some other list of unrelated policies is full of arguable Constitutionality has no bearing on the clear unconstitutionality of a “Muslim ban.”
So, again, not only are we talking about something that is stupid, impossible to enforce, ideologically un-American, emotionally histrionic, and geopolitically unneccessary…we’re talking about something that is illegal. But hey, it sure fires up the garbage people.
Sorry Push, you’re just plain wrong on this one. I wrote:
You’re making some weird inference that simply isn’t there. Trump wants to ban Muslim’s from traveling to the United States for an unmeasurable amount of time. The statement is accurate.
I also think you’ve got the wrong quote anyway. That sounds more like something he’s said about bringing refugees here.
Plus:
The above is a press release by his campaign. It does say, “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” but we know he thinks everyone in Washington is incompetent. So, we really have no clue whatsoever how long The Donald would ban Muslims (if it were even possible).
No. USMCCDS didn’t say either way whether the policy would last for 18 months, five years, or six decades. Probably because it doesn’t change anything about his point. It doesn’t make the ban any less stupid (in fact, it makes it more stupid, because now we’ve got to figure out what Donald Trump thinks “until the vetting process is worked out” means: Syrian refugees are already subject to a very long vetting process, and non-refugee visitors/immigrants can’t be subjected to extra “vetting” by way of a religious test [see Amendment, First]). It doesn’t make the ban less childish, as in only a child could believe that a policy requiring the government to discover the interior religious convictions of more than 75 million people each year could be executed and enforced. It doesn’t make the ban any less of a histrionic nonsense-response to the conditions here in reality. And it doesn’t make it any more Constitutional.
What it does do is muddy the waters a bit, because by pretending that the time interval is a salient issue or bears on the salient issues in even the remotest sense, we get momentarily distracted from the fact that one side and one side alone has won this argument, and decidedly so.
So I have to take your word for it and if I don’t I’m an idiot.[/quote]
Take my word for what? Specifically, what? Nothing I wrote was anything less than common knowledge among politically aware adults. What are you having trouble with? Is it that the Fist Amendment trumps statutory law in case they conflict? Obviously you weren’t aware of this – otherwise you would not have excerpted and posted the U.S. Code as if it told us something about the First Amendment – but I’m not going to explain the very basics to you. You want to look up the SCOTUS case that nullified your first point? You should be able to find it on your own – Torcaso v. Watkins – but regardless, and even if you didn’t know the name of the relevant case, you should not need me to prove to you that, no, it isn’t Constitutional for a public official to have to prove he’s not an atheist prior to his service. So, again, what, exactly, do you doubt? Be specific. Otherwise, each of your objections has been thoroughly dealt with, and we would appear to have no further business here.
So you come in here, write a huge long post addressed to me, which is 4/5 insults and 1/5 arguments.
I do not even know who you are or ever interacting with you and you just spout your personal opinions with no backing up with facts, evidence or expert opinions when pressed…
Now I can really see why you identify so much with jihadists. You enjoy engaging in surprise attacks with logical equivalent of yelling “Allhu Akbar!”
[quote=“therajraj, post:954, topic:215570, full:true”]
So you come in here, write a huge long post addressed to me, which is 4/5 insults and 1/5 arguments.
I do not even know who you are or ever interacting with you and you just spout your personal opinions with no backing up with facts, evidence or expert opinions when pressed…[/quote]
This is a cute little dance you’re trying to do, but it isn’t going to distract anybody from the fact that you’re prancing around amid the smoldering ashes of your dead argument. There were no “personal opinions” in my refutations of your numbered points. It is not my “personal opinion” that the Chinese Exclusion Act tells us exactly nothing about whether or not a “Muslim ban” would violate the Establishment Clause because the Establishment Clause specifically hinges on religion and religious tests and therefore did not come into play vis-a-vis ethnic Chinese immigration. It is not my personal opinion that dead words barring atheists from holding office have no bearing on this argument because they were struck down in 1961 by unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. And so on and so forth: each of your objections has been utterly dismantled, and there wasn’t the slightest appeal to a “personal opinion” in the dismantling.
This is how the big leagues are. I don’t cite stuff you’d learn on the first day of American Government 101, at least not while I’m posting here. So, I ask again, which of my claims, specifically, do you need cited? You said you’re pressing me for evidence; you aren’t. You are unwilling or unable to tell me what you need evidenced. (And, really, you shouldn’t need anything evidenced. I already gave you the name of the relevant SCOTUS case, and that was the only thing I’ve cited so far that wasn’t common knowledge).
Good one brah. Nobody will notice that you’re out of your depth and drowning if you keep ending your posts with sick burns like this one.
It’s okay SMH, I’ve already done the homework for you. I’ve actually looked up what constitutional lawyers have said about a muslim ban specifically with respect to section 1182 of the US code.
You know why I looked up what constitutional lawyers have said? Because I’m not a constitutional lawyer or a legal expert.
It’s great that you think I’m cute and all, but unfortunately for you I’m not gay, though I bet those Jihadists you’re dying to import would be especially tolerant. They might make you take a leap of faith… off a very tall building.
His ability to lie despite the record is astonishing. I mean, is it really that his memory is so bad, or that he understands his supporters are such dupes they’ll subconsciously overlook this stuff in order to preserve their support for the man? He acts as his own spokesman named Miller. Says as much in court and in a People interview, then today says it’s not him on audio recording. Has to be someone imitating him…Again, he had already fessed up to this.
[quote=“therajraj, post:956, topic:215570, full:true”]
It’s okay SMH, I’ve already done the homework for you. I’ve actually looked up what constitutional lawyers have said about a muslim ban specifically with respect to section 1182 of the US code.[/quote]
Then you looked at the wrong people, because the constitutionality of a “Muslim ban” has little to do with the U.S. Code and everything to do with the First Amendment to the Constitution. There were “legal experts” who, early on, didn’t seem even to consider the Establishment Clause, and chose to rush out superficially-counter-intuitive clickbait op-eds with titles like “TRUMP’S BAN IS A TERRIBLE IDEA, BUT OMGZ IT MIGHT BE CONSTITUTIONAL!” – this on the theory that the Free Exercise Clause offers no legal protection to a non-citizen abroad. Which is all well and good, except that that isn’t the challenge its proponents would face before the SCOTUS. Instead, they would have to explain how and why government policy prescribing a religious test for admission to the United States does not violate the part of the Constitution where the government is barred from prescribing religious tests that favor or disfavor any creed (or no creed at all). You are free to take a look at recent (by this I mean the last couple decades) trends and guess whether or not the Court would rule that even the broadest authority under the plenary power doctrine can usher a “Muslim ban” past scrutiny vis-a-vis broadly-tailored ideological religious testing and exclusion.
Don’t worry, nobody has confused you for one. But because you clearly don’t understand even the most basic shit about what we’re discussing – I continue to be baffled by the fact that a person who can read English sentences could think that the Chinese Exclusion Act has anything to do with a religious immigration test vis-a-vis the Establishment Clause – maybe you should take your “I’m no expert” ball and waddle away. I thought maybe you’d try the plenary powers angle, but I think it’s clear to both of us that you aren’t going to manage that.
So: your defense of Trump’s ban has failed to the last letter, and you still won’t tell me which of my claims you need me to evidence. It appears that we have run out of things to talk about.
Fyi, smh is one of the more well respected and educated regulars in PWI. He knows his shit (even though we have disagreed, rather vigorously, on many things).
Anyway, this thread – particularly you, TB, Sloth, Drew, Aragorn – like the broader election cycle it’s mirroring, has reconfirmed me in the belief that a loose centrist party uniting (at least on a majority of the large issues) every liberal to my right with every conservative to your left would run this country for the next century…and to the benefit and prosperity of all.