What is unconstitutional about what Trump proposes?

[NYcarbineer]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

They'll do that pretzel logic thing where they'll say targeting certain people isnt discrimination. Followed by questions like "Whats discriminatory about it?".

Actually... granting illegals special privileges of achieving citizenship, over any other overseas immigrant that must endure the long process of achieving their legal right to become Americans as dictated under Federal Immigration law, would be deemed discriminatory.

Irrelevant to the argument.

Trump said he'd ban all Muslims, including Americans, from entering the country.

That's unconstitutional.

But the uneducated who support Trump don't seem to understand this very simple notion.

they are either uneducated or have NO respect for the constitution. They have no respect for the Laws that made this country strong ... so they deem themselves "patriots"

One day they diss Obama for being unconstitutional the next day they laud Trump for being unconstitutional.

Trump can run his campaign any way he chooses. Walking on the constitution should automatically end a campaign.

end of story.

Trump is trying to end his campaign. I said that several outrageous Trumpisms ago.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What I don't get is why righties, in particular, are infinitely more outraged by a Muslim killing an American, as opposed to Latin Americans murdering Americans, or the Russian mafia murdering Americans.

I get why they're not worked up about American citizens murdering Americans.....

But between Al Quada, and ISIS, they have now made American self terrorizing pussies, afraid of their own shadows, and turning on everyone with suspicion.

Sad

Actually republicans have voiced their outrage over protected felons that were kept from ICE through sanctuary cities, which resulted in the killing of Americans. Democrats chose to protect such action.

Republicans wanted to investigate the murder of a border agent killed while Obama was fighting the fast and furious issue. The administration chose to never pursue the matter.

Republicans want to seal the border, seeing it as a weakness for Al Qeada and Isis to exploit entry. After Paris and now San Bernardino, republicans still feel the need to protect our borders from any threats that may sneak into this country. Democrats don't take the role quite as serious, and hide behind race as an excuse to do nothing about it.

 

[Siete]

Feel free to fill me in.

I can see that there is embargo on issuing visa's to Iranians but nothing about religion.

It is the same, the majority of Iranians were Muslim. Call it what it is. If it was okay then, why is it not okay now? At least be consistent.

Well I am calling it what it is- if the ban was on all Iranians- it would have banned both Muslim and Christian Iranians- which is perfectly constitutional.

If our good Conservatives want ensure that no Iraqi Christians can escape Muslim persecution in Iraq, then just pass a ban on any entry by Iraqi's.

98% of Iranians are Muslim, so it was a ban on Muslims. It is what it was.

Again, at least be honest and quit making excuses. Was Clinton wrong in banning Iranians that were 98% Muslim? I am asking for honesty, no word twisting.

No more than a ban on Italians would be a ban on Christians- or frankly than a ban on Israeli's would be a ban on Jews.

I am beginning to suspect you really don't understand what 'honesty' means.

Here let me help you:

A ban on Iranians means that all Iranians- Muslim, Christian, atheist etc- all are banned.
But Muslims from Iraq or Afghanistan- Iran's neighbors are not.

A ban on Israelis means that all Israeli's are banned- Jewish, Muslim, Christians- are all banned.
But Jews from Turkey are not banned.

With all due respect. I like that you are being civil in this discussion and I appreciate the exchange of ideas.

When 98% of the people are one religion, who is the ban really on? It is on that religion.

Who in Iran was the issue with? The Ayatollah and the Muslims? Not the Christians, however the odds of a Christian from Iran to enter into the US is one in 50-75? Or less than 2%.

If you placed a curfew on a neighborhood that is 98% black, the ban isn't about the neighborhood is it? It's about race.

I don't see anything different between what Carter did and what Trump is purposing. I don't agree with either one of them. Wrong then, wrong now.

I don't see anything different between what Carter did and what Trump is purposing. I don't agree with either one of them. Wrong then, wrong now.

``````````````

Carter didn't ban Iranians totally. Medical emergencies were allowed in the country.
Students that had broken their visa was sent home.
Carter put a conditional ban on ONE group of people ... Trump bans ALL MUSLIMS.

if you don't see the difference there you don't need to bother yourself with the subject.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What is unconstitutional about what Trump proposes?"

That some feel the need to even ask this question is both sad and telling.

 

[bripat9643]

To me he proposes a temporary ban against a potential threat, until the government creates a foolproof solution. What's unconstitutional about that?

This reminds me of those threads that go "What do you consider rich?" where every answer is wrong. If you think banning a religion is constitutional then you just saved me a bunch of time.

No one is proposing to ban a religion, moron. Furthermore, it's debatable whether Islam can truly be called a legitimate religion.

 

[bripat9643]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

It can't discriminate against Americans based on religion. It can discriminate against foreigners on any basis it likes.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

They'll do that pretzel logic thing where they'll say targeting certain people isnt discrimination. Followed by questions like "Whats discriminatory about it?".

Actually... granting illegals special privileges of achieving citizenship, over any other overseas immigrant that must endure the long process of achieving their legal right to become Americans as dictated under Federal Immigration law, would be deemed discriminatory.

Irrelevant to the argument.

Trump said he'd ban all Muslims, including Americans, from entering the country.

That's unconstitutional.

But the uneducated who support Trump don't seem to understand this very simple notion.

they are either uneducated or have NO respect for the constitution. They have no respect for the Laws that made this country strong ... so they deem themselves "patriots"

One day they diss Obama for being unconstitutional the next day they laud Trump for being unconstitutional.

Trump can run his campaign any way he chooses. Walking on the constitution should automatically end a campaign.

end of story.

Thats only true if their party believes the Constitution is important or if they like to hide behind it only when its convenient.

Since actions speak louder than words their actions show that their fear and needing a daddy figure to rub their heads and tell them it will be ok is more important.

Thats why he's leading in the polls. They'll throw the founding fathers themselves under that bus too....Anything for Trump

 

[Siete]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

It can't discriminate against Americans based on religion. It can discriminate against foreigners on any basis it likes.

repeat after me ..

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

now you're covered, continue.

 

[ClosedCaption]

To me he proposes a temporary ban against a potential threat, until the government creates a foolproof solution. What's unconstitutional about that?

This reminds me of those threads that go "What do you consider rich?" where every answer is wrong. If you think banning a religion is constitutional then you just saved me a bunch of time.

No one is proposing to ban a religion, moron. Furthermore, it's debatable whether Islam can truly be called a legitimate religion.

Try again, you cant discriminate based on religion. Go ahead and tell me why this right should be done away with because you're scared Capt Patriot

 

[bripat9643]

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Correct.

With regard to his unwarranted hostility toward Muslims, what Trump advocates would violate the First Amendment.

In addition to First Amendment violations, such a 'plan' would also violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, particularly the 5th Amendment's Liberty Clause and Due Process Clause.

The Constitution clearly prohibits seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law predicated solely on who they are.

The constitution doesn't protect foreigners, dumbass.

 

[couch protester]

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Correct.

With regard to his unwarranted hostility toward Muslims, what Trump advocates would violate the First Amendment.

In addition to First Amendment violations, such a 'plan' would also violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, particularly the 5th Amendment's Liberty Clause and Due Process Clause.

The Constitution clearly prohibits seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law predicated solely on who they are.

The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

You're putting up a twisted straw man argument that you're spinning into a web of lies.
Foreigner Muslims outside America don't have constitutional rights to enter because their not American citizens, so therefore they don't have rights here just because they are inconvenienced from traveling to US. Only foreign Muslims residing in America are protected under the constitution.

Trump is not trying to ban Islam from practicing religion, he wants to put a temporary halt on non American Muslims entering America until they rectify how to screen them more effectively when coming to USA.


Separation of church and state

This only refers to religion being practiced in America, not outside the US.

The degree of separation varies from total separation mandated by a constitution

The separation of church and state is a concept defining the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. It may refer to creating a secular state, with or without explicit reference to such separation, or to changing an existing relationship of church involvement in a state (disestablishment).

 

[bripat9643]

To me he proposes a temporary ban against a potential threat, until the government creates a foolproof solution. What's unconstitutional about that?

This reminds me of those threads that go "What do you consider rich?" where every answer is wrong. If you think banning a religion is constitutional then you just saved me a bunch of time.

No one is proposing to ban a religion, moron. Furthermore, it's debatable whether Islam can truly be called a legitimate religion.

Try again, you cant discriminate based on religion. Go ahead and tell me why this right should be done away with because you're scared Capt Patriot

The Constitution doesn't protect the rights of foreigners, moron. No one has a right to immigrate here. The federal government is free to discriminate against them on any basis it chooses.

 

[bripat9643]

The government cannot discriminate based on religion. It's in the first amendment.

It can't discriminate against Americans based on religion. It can discriminate against foreigners on any basis it likes.

repeat after me ..

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

now you're covered, continue.

We already know that, dumbass. Then what argument do you have against keeping the muzzie barbarians from entering the country?

 

[Papageorgio]

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening. Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists:"

Correct.

With regard to his unwarranted hostility toward Muslims, what Trump advocates would violate the First Amendment.

In addition to First Amendment violations, such a 'plan' would also violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, particularly the 5th Amendment's Liberty Clause and Due Process Clause.

The Constitution clearly prohibits seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law predicated solely on who they are.

Trump's success with righties shows that the concept of leadership does not involve giving Americans what they want, rather it involves seeing that government gives the people what they need.

Trump's platform is simply a sales pitch, not a platform that could be shoe-horned into policy

Lol! Every candidate does that. Obama made his sales pitch in 2008, didn't follow through on it. It's what politicians do.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Obama's main platform items included:

1. Getting unemployment down to 8% or less by 2012.
2. Creating a Healthcare law.
3. Closing Gitmo.
4. Getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump's platform is exceedingly vague.

1. Build an impenetrable wall along the border
2. Seal the borders
3. ?????

what is his "platform anyway?

And did you notice how Obama came through with 3 of the 5 major platform items?

Being unable to close Gitmo was because the conservatives stopped it.

Afghanistan, he did what conservatives wanted, to stay there and fight

Since unemployment wasn't over 6.5% during the 2008 campaign why did he promise to get it under 8%?

 

[Interpol]

Well since the far left sees FDR as a hero for locking up Japanese Americans and does not consider that unconstitutional, not sure why they have a problem with what Trump said..

Wrong. Progressives and many moderates and Republicans alike look to FDR as a hero everything besides that blight on his legacy.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

 

[konradv]

The Constitution doesn't protect the rights of foreigners, moron. No one has a right to immigrate here. The federal government is free to discriminate against them on any basis it chooses.

Statist stooge!

 

[Papageorgio]

It is the same, the majority of Iranians were Muslim. Call it what it is. If it was okay then, why is it not okay now? At least be consistent.

Well I am calling it what it is- if the ban was on all Iranians- it would have banned both Muslim and Christian Iranians- which is perfectly constitutional.

If our good Conservatives want ensure that no Iraqi Christians can escape Muslim persecution in Iraq, then just pass a ban on any entry by Iraqi's.

98% of Iranians are Muslim, so it was a ban on Muslims. It is what it was.

Again, at least be honest and quit making excuses. Was Clinton wrong in banning Iranians that were 98% Muslim? I am asking for honesty, no word twisting.

No more than a ban on Italians would be a ban on Christians- or frankly than a ban on Israeli's would be a ban on Jews.

I am beginning to suspect you really don't understand what 'honesty' means.

Here let me help you:

A ban on Iranians means that all Iranians- Muslim, Christian, atheist etc- all are banned.
But Muslims from Iraq or Afghanistan- Iran's neighbors are not.

A ban on Israelis means that all Israeli's are banned- Jewish, Muslim, Christians- are all banned.
But Jews from Turkey are not banned.

With all due respect. I like that you are being civil in this discussion and I appreciate the exchange of ideas.

When 98% of the people are one religion, who is the ban really on? It is on that religion.

Who in Iran was the issue with? The Ayatollah and the Muslims? Not the Christians, however the odds of a Christian from Iran to enter into the US is one in 50-75? Or less than 2%.

If you placed a curfew on a neighborhood that is 98% black, the ban isn't about the neighborhood is it? It's about race.

I don't see anything different between what Carter did and what Trump is purposing. I don't agree with either one of them. Wrong then, wrong now.

I don't see anything different between what Carter did and what Trump is purposing. I don't agree with either one of them. Wrong then, wrong now.

``````````````

Carter didn't ban Iranians totally. Medical emergencies were allowed in the country.
Students that had broken their visa was sent home.
Carter put a conditional ban on ONE group of people ... Trump bans ALL MUSLIMS.

if you don't see the difference there you don't need to bother yourself with the subject.

I can bother with it all I want. What Trump is purposing is disturbing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That means we have to terminate all diplomatic relations with all Muslim countries, or with any country that has Muslims in its diplomatic corps.

That would include all of the Muslim countries that are currently fighting ISIS.

 

[Kosh]

Well since the far left sees FDR as a hero for locking up Japanese Americans and does not consider that unconstitutional, not sure why they have a problem with what Trump said..

Wrong. Progressives and many moderates and Republicans alike look to FDR as a hero everything besides that blight on his legacy.

FDR lied the US into WWII
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR locked up Japanese Americans to vet them through a loyal program..

FDR create the welfare state
FDR created the Military Industrial Complex