[quote]
You can’t vaporize someone under the Constitution without Due Process[/quote]
It’s simply not true. I, a JSOC operator, blow up a Yemeni national at an AQ hideout in Waziristan: the Constitution has nothing to say about it. Which is exactly why the analogy fails. There is no Constitutional violation from which an injury may proceed. This is plainly not the case vis-a-vis Trump’s ban and the EC. Thus, the cases are unalike and incomparable.
Well, yes, there is, under your formulation, that’s what I keep reminding you. The Constiutional violation is the lack of Due Process before killing someone. That it is a non-citizen that does not enjoy said constitutional right is irrelevant under your theory - the violation is to you on a mere violation of Constitition abstractly - abstractly in the sense that it is not you that you are the direct victim of the unconstitutional policy, but rather you are aggrieved enough indirectly that you change your lifestyle, etc.
In neither example is the non-citizen himself entitled to constitutional protections, but in both, the citizen is “harmed” - under your theory - merely by the passing of an unconstitutional law or policy that caused them to alter their lives.
There’s no distinction. And the calculus is the same.
Now, to your point that the Constitution is silent in vaporizing terrorists - incorrect, the Constitution says you can’t deprive someone of their life without Due Process, and under your formulation, it’s completely irrelevant that that “person” is a non-citizen. I have the same injury when my suspected terrorist business associate gets killed by a drone - it’s caused by an unconstitutional policy, so that’s good enough.
I agree. I am not in favor of reckless immigration, illegal or otherwise. I don’t recall ever saying that I was. But a religious ban is anathema to me on reasons of principle, to say nothing of the practicality of such a measure. We cannot consider ourselves to a nation that believes in the founding principle of religious freedom if we attempt to do such a thing.
I suck at nesting quotes on my phone so I will just quote this.
That would probably have a better chance at being Constitutional and enforceable. I would still oppose it on principle however. 1 or 2 countries, with good reason, I would probably not oppose. Or at least not vigorously.
And yes I do believe there are cultures that are incompatible to live together. Most of histories wars and the ethnic cleansings of the last century were because of these, or related, reasons.
A mass immigration/refugee situation and an outright ban are very different things and should be treated differently. Europe had no plan for all these people and it shows. I am not in favor of bringing refugees here, but not because they’re Muslim.
Don’t be like Europe. They can assimilate or they can go back.
For the record, in case it’s been misunderstood by anyone, I am not for open borders. I think that’s borderline retarded.
No, the policy isn’t unconstitutional, and you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the reasoning by which I am making my argument. Killing a non-citizen terrorist in Pakistan: not unconstitutional. Under any circumstance. Ever. There is no “Constitutional violation [via] the lack of Due Process before killing someone” if that someone is not a citizen and acted on under the circumstances described.
Trump’s ban, creating a policy dis/preferential on its face along religious lines: unconstitutional. The federal government enacting policies that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another: unconstitutional.
In the EC case, there is an actual violation of the Constitution to which to appeal and directly from which the injury arises, causally. In the DPC case, there is no violation of the constitution. None. There is no analogy.
Incidentally, I have a question: As of now, we have extraordinarily good reason to believe that a woman such as described previously would have standing in the relevant context. Tribe says so explicitly, and even skeptics on plenary power grounds like Volokh imply that the case would go before the court and could well alter plenary power doctrine (one assumes that he wold not think it possible for the case to alter such if, as you say, nobody would have standing to bring it). We have Valley Forge, which shows unequivocally – there is no question about this – that Nontaxpayer EC standing is conferrable in such cases where the plaintiff “allege[s] facts sufficient to establish that [she] has suffered, or is threatened with, an injury other than [her] belief that the [policy] violated the Constitution.” We have good reason to believe that such injury would be entailed by the hypothetical described, because of comparable DC cases in which much, much less is deemed to pass the test for standing, but particularly because the SCOTUS in Valley Forge invoked a mere “personal injury suffered as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees.”
So what, exactly, are you arguing? Are you claiming that a woman burdened in the way described previously, as a direct result of a policy which, on its face, disfavors along religious lines, does not satisfy the conditions for “personal injury suffered as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error”?
I have no idea my man. It’s irrelevant. We aren’t Japan. They’re highly homogenous and dis-trustworthy of alloutsiders. Ask any of the regular posters that live there.
The United States is basically the polar opposite. We are a melting pot of cultures, nationalities, races, and yes, even religions.
I don’t have to do anything. We’re trading partners with most if not all of the 50 countries you’ve mentioned and I don’t even know which nations you’re talking about. There are strategic implications regarding defense. Economics is the easiest, we use this thing called oil…
I just gave you an example of a diverse country that has strict border controls and goes to great lengths to prevent Muslims from coming to their country. They do it specifically in fear of terrorism
I’m arguing that standing for a third party is not nearly as clear-cut as you posit, and it isn’t a foregone conclusion that a citizen could sue for an injury to himself based on a ban on someone he knows that would be affected by it.
Yesterday you conceded you didn’t understand standing, but now you want to claim the issue is a done deal. It’s not. And your distinction re: DP doesn’t provide a difference. Well, it wouldn’t to the person you’re relying on - Laurence Tribe:
“It is true there are some court decisions ruling that a few parts of the Constitution do not apply to people who are not U.S. citizens and who are abroad, such as protections against unreasonable searches that would otherwise be illegal if conducted on Americans in the U.S. But those precedents have nothing to do with the Constitution’s limits on government in this area — there is no such limit on the First Amendment’s bar against declaring an official religion, *or such a limit on the Fifth Amendment’s protection of due process. *Under Supreme Court precedent, that protection applies to U.S. conduct impacting any “person” — *American citizen or not, *wherever located.”
So Tribe says you’re wrong about DP saying nothing ever about vaporizing a suspected terrorist by drone in Waziristan - you’ve cited him at length, is he wrong on this, and you’re right?
Point is, while you want it be cut and dried, it isn’t, in terms of who could claim a cognizable constitutional injury out of this ban, and my DP example shows why the waters are muddy for a third party.
Further, there isn’t even unanimity on the merits issue as to the actual constitutionality of such a ban (as you note, Volokh thinks there’s a good chance such a ban is constitutional as does Akhil Amar). And as a prudential matter, courts may limit third party standing in these issues so as not to open courts to be providing the equivalent of advisory opinions.
You’re a real crack up. You just ignore everything I write you don’t like. I’m basically done at this point.
You want to ban all Muslims because you don’t like Muslims, plain and simple. If that’s how you feel, great, I don’t really care.
What the Japanese or Israelis or Russians or x, y, or z do is irrelevant to how the United States acts. I do not care what other country’s do. The United States has always led not followed. Why the fuck should we start now?
Fyi, they don’t go to great lengths to keep all Muslims out and they have much greater cause to do so than we do. Like 15% of the population of Israel are Muslim.
