[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Does temporarily barring Muslim foreigners from visiting or immigrating violate the 1st Amendment? If so, tell me how.[/quote]
How does building a religious test into state policy violate the First Amendment? You know the answer to that one.
People have had a grand time observing that potential visitors/immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. Unfortunately, the clause according to which the state may not dole its favor or disfavor among religions is object-independent: it restrains a characteristic intrinsic to certain kinds of government behavior.[/quote]
I disagree.
Read the dissent in this piece for all the good reasons why: Congress to Consider Easing Passage into U.S. for Immigrants - Washington Free Beacon
[/quote]
The article doesn’t address what I said. Again, of course potential immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. This doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that policy built of a religious test very clearly violates the Establishment Clause, which proscribes characteristics intrinsic to laws and policy themselves, not treatment of certain peoples.
Edit: Fixed quotations.[/quote]
Just reinterpret it. Doesn’t say “some” nor “all,” so it could mean “some.” I mean, if we’re willing to do it for the 2nd, with respect to actual citizens of the US…
[/quote]
No. Unfortunately, this one, unlike the Second, reads “no law respecting.” “No law.”[/quote]
Much much like “shall not be infringed upon.” Still, it does not say “no law respecting ALL (or some)…”[/quote]
It doesn’t need to include the words “all” or “some,” because it reads “no law.” No law = not one law = none. There is no question about the meaning of these two words.
On the other hand, and unfortunately for your argument, the phrase “no law” is missing from the Second Amendment, as is any synonymous or comparable phrase. You invoke “shall not be infringed,” but I have already shown that it is logically and syntactically unarguable that a shotgun is an arm, and shotguns are therefore arms, and therefore a right keep and bear e.g. shotguns is literally a right to keep and bear arms, and as long as a right to shotguns is not infringed, a right to arms is not infringed. The language is not complicated in either the 2A or the EC case.
Anyway, that has already been dealt with, and I am uninterested in repeating myself on Second Amendment questions. In the present matter there is not much ambiguity. Law and programs of the state may not set policy to a religious test unless such is adjudged to be Constitutional in the particular case and under a strict scrutiny framework. It is inconceivable that this would be the outcome of Trump’s proposal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Furthermore, why are you bringing up “actual citizens of the US” when it has been made clear that the EC’s implication has nothing to do with non-citizens?[/quote]
Because that was put forth as a prohibitive against a religious test which would affect would be immigrants (not citizens.)[/quote]
No, it was explicitly not. The EC does not involve or hinge on any particular rights-holder but instead prohibits certain characteristics intrinsic to government law and policy, on those whole and sufficient grounds. The nature of all of the state’s law and policy itself is what is qualified by this particular clause.
This would be clear to everyone in PWI if the proposal instead involved blocking Christians from entering the United States or, even better, limiting all legal immigration to Muslim adherents. Either of these would clearly be unconstitutional, per the Establishment Clause and not the “rights” of potential Christian immigrants. As is Trump’s stupid proposition.
Edited.[/quote]
The second point simply follows up the first, which is the main point I wanted to make. The first, “Some” and “all.” The second point is an added benefit, so to speak. Citizens aren’t actually affected by it.
