This is not an argument, it’s a logical fallacy. You’re intelligent enough to understand that, surely.
I thought the US Constitution only protected the rights of U.S. Citizens. How is it unconstitutional to ban non-citizen Muslims?
Establishment Clause, which constrains the nature of law and policy itself rather than government treatment of citizens (explained above in great detail).
To every swinging dick liberal the Establishment clause means we can shit all over the rest of the document.
doogie, the Establishment clause does not pertain to non citizens. Congress shall make no law…
smh_23, this is a LONG thread. Can you narrow down where it is explained at all? If not, that’s fine.
Except that’s not what Trump said, and not what his campaign reiterated in print, and not what the current argument is about. Carter restricted immigration from certain countries during his administration due to the crisis. That is certainly within his powers and moreover does not discriminate against a religion itself. Trump, on the other hand, repeatedly said “muslims”–as in the religion as a whole–not certain countries’ citizenry. That is a whole different ballgame and precedent. That is not “lathered up for no good reason”. Smh’s argument has teeth.
I do not think it is at all certain that the SCOTUS would rule that the Establishment clause applies to non-citizens outside of our country, but I do view it as the likely outcome. Moreover, even without the ruling the practical enforcement is absolutely untenable when written into law as Trump obviously intended it in his speech. Ban “muslims”–these terrorists blow up civilian populations and behead people, you REALLY think that they’ll be put off by lying about the religion they observe in order to get into the country? No. That’s foolishness on the level of all the pro gun control arguments you’ve demolished over the years. You think criminals and terrorists care about lying on paper?
Well, that clarifies what you meant by “go read what I said about mortar rounds” above (I did the first time you posted it by the way, I just did not see why you said that until this clarification).
Probably a portion of what you said is true, but there are certain things that are not only “wild” rounds, but are so ineptly aimed that they throw into question Trump’s grasp of reality. For instance the war crimes bit that he had to walk back, and, in my opinion, this bit on Muslims. It is one thing to be inexperienced in policy and talk in say…the way Bernie Sanders talks, if he were a conservative or moderate business man (which he is obviously not). Air, convictions, no real substance, but thd aura that he has a general idea of what he wants even though policy wise it can’t work without, as you put it, expert ballistics guidance. Trumps statements are not even in the same league of foibles as Sanders’ obviously misguided policy ideas. I view them much more seriously.
My 2 cents. (excuse typos, on my phone)
I am not saying that the Establishment Clause would apply to non-citizens, I am saying that it applies to policy itself. I excerpted SCOTUS rulings that say exactly that, unambiguously. You reply that…
…but it doesn’t really mean anything to me, because what you’ve done (or, rather, failed to do) in this thread has made it painfully clear that you don’t have the first idea what kind of precedent there is. Otherwise, when I was excerpting precedent in support of an argument I made, you would have responded specifically rather than by vaguely objecting and then refusing to utter a single word of actual argument. Here we are, a day later, and you continue to refuse to make a point or counter mine. My argument relies specifically and explicitly on precedent – precedent with which it’s clear you’re not familiar, but precedent nonetheless. If you read only one sentence in this post, let it be this one: It isn’t lost on anyone that only one of the two of us has had anything at all to say about previous SCOTUS rulings, relevant legal tests, and which standard of judicial review would apply in the context.
So, again, you can try to make one point here on the substance, or you can give this up. Everyone is always speculating when they are talking about a SCOTUS ruling, and yet speculation can be ironclad and objectively correct, as in “no, the SCOTUS will not uphold a law that forces children to begin each school day with Hail Satan.”
You don’t think this particular argument is right? Go ahead and come up with a reason.
1 Like
Setting aside the fact that your loss here – a 100 percent reliable result, in the Trump era – had nothing to do with experience and everything to do with the argument you made (or, as it were, didn’t make)…what experience-advantage do you think you have here?
It’s surely clear that I have more experience with the material itself (see my previous post).
Or is this life experience we’re talking about? Let’s try this: I’m back in the country this week only, but I’ve been working in and am about to return to the Middle East. That’s me, behind the thumb, going to the kind of place that you can’t get to by anything other than camel or horse – the kind of place where you learn real things about jihadists, terror, Muslims, etc. How many jihadists have you met and spoken to? How many Muslims have you met? What makes you think that I am even in the same universe as you when it comes relevant life experience on matters of this or any other geopolitical concern?
1 Like
- “…Ted Cruz was not eligible for the US presidency and it would’ve set a dangerous precedent had it occurred…”
What was the Congressman’s thinking here, Push?
Sure. The summary version is that the EC prohibits the government from creating certain kinds of policy – it constrains the nature of government policy in itself, not treatment of some particular citizen. (See the text of the 1A). More specific stuff here, which I posted a few days ago (note that “discriminatory” here means “favoring or disfavoring religion – a particular one, or all of them – in policy”):
– If a law, program, or policy is discriminatory on its face – and one would be hard pressed to find a better example of such a policy than a provision designed to identify and ban one group of religious believers and not any others – then the pronged Lemon Test is abandoned in favor of strict scrutiny. Good luck with that (here I pause to chuckle while thinking about the term “narrowly-tailored”; again, good luck with that).
– "The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente.
– “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government […] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing.
Edit: So, the EC is about whether or not a preference/dis-preference for one religion over/under another can be found in the structure/nature of laws, programs, or government policy. Obviously, immigration policy designed to exclude a particular denomination creates in its maker just such a preference/dis-preference. The people being kept out are not citizens, but the nature of the rule by which they are kept out, and the test you need to apply in order to execute the policy, creates in its administrator a clear religious preference, and this is prohibited unequivocally by the First Amendment. The take-home: it isn’t about what the policy would do to the non-citizens; it’s about what the policy would do to the government itself. This is what the EC is concerned with – the orientation of the government toward religion (in general and in particular) as a constrained quality in itself.
1 Like
Setting aside the legality of a Muslim ban, Why would you want more Muslims in America?
I agree with this and fully believe the SCOTUS will rule in the manner you predicted should this unfortunate policy somehow come to be attempted.
However, I have also thought analogously about seemingly obvious rulings in recent years that did not go the way I thought was so obvious (I am sure you can name them), so I do not believe it to be a certain thing. I do believe it to be highly likely. Unpleasant and inscrutable curveballs do happen however.