by Jack
The question before us is: Does the President of the United States have the right to issue an executive order on the basis of national security? You name the reason, terrorism, trade, immigration, sanctions, etc., does he have that right? Of course, the order must be reasonable and within the law, but other than that, does he have this right? It’s been long held the president does have this right.
The democrats say no. They think that the ban is an infringement on a religion and thus it’s in-American. That the ban is based on irrational fears.
Democrats would like us to skip over the two centuries of past practice, the Constitution that provides the Executive branch with the power and the will of the people (polling shows a majority of Americans support Trump’s ban).
Ironically, opposition to the temporary travel ban may hinge on one key element, the establishment clause contained within the 1st Amendment. Most Constitutional scholars believe this was designed to prevent our government from imposing a national religion or favoring one religion over all others.
The passage simply reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … .” Note that the clause is absolute. It allows no law. It is also noteworthy that the clause forbids more than the establishment of religion by the government. How the left intends to twist this meaning is yet to be determined, but several appeals court justices have expressed an interest in it relative to the ban. I can’t wait to hear the argument, because nobody is denying Muslims their religious rights or free speech rights.
All the opponents of the ban have to prove is that the law was designed with the intent to discriminate against Muslims. Since Guliani has apparently suffered some kind of stroke rendering him incapable of keeping his mouth shut, we know that he consulted with Trump on what he calls a “Muslim ban” and that Trump was trying to find out “how to do it legally.” This is backed up by Trump himself saying he would consider a Muslim ban during the campaign. There is plenty of precedence for courts striking down laws due to discriminatory intent even when the law itself doesn’t inherently discriminate, such as voter ID laws. Trump has hoisted himself on his own petard with this stupid, ill-advised ban. It won’t be the last time.
Regardless what was said the order itself does not contain language that discriminates on the basis of religion. It will take a politicized court to imagine that it does. The EO covers foreigners of any religion, or none, from the named nations: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. There are Muslims living in many other nations that are not included. Religion has nothing to do with the intent behind the order.
There is also Federal immigration law Section 1182(f), which states: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”
Trump’s executive order also expressly relies on an Obama-era provision of the immigration law, Section 1187(a)(12), which governs the Visa Waiver Program. This statute empowers the executive branch to waive the documentation requirements for certain aliens. In it, Congress itself expressly discriminates based on country of origin.
Under this provision, Congress provides that an alien is eligible for the waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria any time after March 1, 2011; (b) in any country whose government is designated by the State Department as “repeatedly provid[ing] support for acts of international terrorism”; or (c) in any country that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a country “of concern.”
The above by Andrew McCarthy re-posted here
The thought police have you stuck in a box. One day maybe you’ll climb out of it and be able to read and understand outside that (discrimination) box.
There are plenty of laws on the books…many of them are written on PC cloth that in time will rot and fall away in tatters.
The order specifically says exemptions may be made for religious minorities within some of the affected countries (i.e. Christians). So yes, the text of the order does discriminate based on religion. But as I said, even if it didn’t all the court would have to find is discriminatory intent.
You say “Religion has nothing to do with the intent behind the order.” Do you believe Guliani was lying when he said that Trump came to him asking how to do a “Muslim ban” legally?
I believe Trump and Guliani talked about the problems associated with terrorism and neither is tied in knots over political correctness.
“The order specifically says exemptions may be made for religious minorities within some of the affected countries (i.e. Christians)”
Well it had to since our refugee law calls out religion specifically when it deals with asylum: “To be
considered a refugee under this law, the person must have been persecuted or fear persecution on the basis of race, religion or political opinion.”
Muslim terrorists have targeted Christians, Jews, Buddists, Copts, and others. Christians have been specifically targeted. They have been murdered en masse, they have been crucified, set on fire, hanged, and seen their churches destroyed:
Incredibly, most Democrats are unaware…or don’t care:
Tolerance in our country far outweighs instances of discrimination or abuse against Mulsims in my opinion. (Difference of opinion is not abuse) Discrimination and abuse of Muslims has gotten worse under Obama whose policies have made the world more vulnerable to the radicals of the Muslim faith, the Islamist terrorists. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that tensions have also grown along with the attacks on our soil, the foreign policy and military failures, the constant preaching and talking down to the American people.
There is no intent on Trumps part to keep Muslims out, otherwise the temporary pause would have included ALL Muslims…it does not. Instead the same countries are named that Obama identified and Congress affirmed as the seven most dangerous countries in the world in regard to harboring terrorists.
National security is the intent behind the law. The intent of the radicals of your party is to obstruct and delay when it comes to national security and to play games about race and religion. The tactic takes precedence even over the safety of the American people. An activist court will see it your way. Leftist activist judges don’t believe in the letter of the law. The law is just a flexible tool to be used for power and politics.
You think one has to be “tied up in knots of political correctness” to avoid saying they want a “Muslim ban?” Wow. No, not wanting a Muslim ban doesn’t make someone PC, it makes them not a religious bigot.
If the intent were national security, Trump would have consulted national security experts when crafting the law. Instead, the law was crafted by right-wing bloggers. Almost no one in national security supports it. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about, and have nothing but talking points.
“I can’t wait to hear the argument, because nobody is denying Muslims their religious rights or free speech rights.”
Well, first you have to get the issues straight. The opp contends that the ban discriminates on the basis of religion (this is not a denial of anybody’s right to practice said religion). And the opp may very well lose on that point, because the ban does not discriminate against ALL Muslims … just ones from the offending nations.
And, frankly, there is nothing at all wrong with the idea of tightening up procedure with regard to said countries … but that’s not what the dictatorial idiot did. He up-ended thousands of lives and cause no small quantity of economic damage to the country in the service of placating the fear and bigotry of the lower orders. I’m not sure there is a law against that … but it is wrong.
Libby, you were off to a good start! lol Well, okay, let’s work off the issues as you have defined them.
First: The court must act only on the evidence before it. Can we agree on that? That evidence would be the [language] in the travel ban. Either the language meets the test of being non-discriminatory or it does not. That’s all the court can rule on.
Second: The court is not authorized to introduce a “hidden intent” based on past statements made during a campaign by then candidate Trump. Many things get said during the heat of a campaign and if we use this a litmus test to determine “mens rea” (a person’s mental state of mind at the time they issued the presidential order) we are exceeding the courts authority.
Can you not see how incredibly dangerous this would be to allow the court to determine what a person [really] intended and not what was actually written? In this case, the court must not presume to know Trump’s state of mind, only what was written. And what was written does not show discrimination. It limits travel from 7 countries into the USA. Where’s the ban on Muslims? Millions of Muslims are free to come and go that live in other Muslim controlled countries.
So if they court does use Trumps campaign rhetoric in rendering a decision they would be getting into the business of mind reading. That’s a Pandora’s box you never want to open.
I’m confused, Jack. Haven’t courts struck down voter ID laws based on inferring intent of the lawmakers? I’m pretty sure that happened. What makes this case different?
Also, the text of the order does say priority will be given to religious minorities, which would be Christians in that part of the world. Of course they should be allowed in as well, but no one can say that Muslims haven’t suffered under ISIS. Couldn’t that part be read as discriminatory?
The Hill:
No one on the left objected. Wonder why?
Because it isn’t true. There absolutely were Christian refugees admitted during the time that article describes.
So…you were against the ACA?
Hypocrite!
Today Trump said that criticizing the Yemen operation is disrespectful to the soldiers that died in the operation.
I have questions.
Does this mean that Trump thinks his own criticism of the Iraq War was disrespectful to all the soldiers who died in the war?
Does this mean Trump thinks all the Republicans who criticized Obama and Clinton’s handling of Benghazi, including himself, were disrespecting the Americans who died there?
Does this mean he thinks anyone who criticized any failed Obama operation was disrespecting soldiers who died during those?
Of course Trump doesn’t think that. Because Trump doesn’t think. He just says stuff, with no thought to whether his own previous statements and actions totally contradict what he’s saying.
Remember that bogus list he put out yesterday of terror attacks that were “under-reported” by the MSM? The one that included attacks that were extremely well-reported, like San Bernardino and the Pulse nightclub shooting, and misspelled “attacker” as “attaker” multiple times?
It also included Islamist terror attacks that were not Islamist terror attacks, like the stabbing of two young Americans in Australia. The parents of the victims have slammed Trump for lying about the deaths of their children for political gain. Read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mom-trump-terror-attacks_us_589aacbbe4b04061313a5291?ncid=APPLENEWS00001
“Today Trump said that criticizing the Yemen operation is disrespectful to the soldiers that died in the operation.”
Well, somebody needs to point out to him that such criticism is aimed at him, for authorizing reckless military operations that gain us nothing but dead soldiers, dead civilians, and the contempt of foreign states.
Libby, the criticism is indeed pointed at Trump, but if there is any blame here, then it should go to the person who authorized the mission many months ago. That is President Obama, not Trump.
Conceived, not authorized. The O-man, being the soul of prudence, was, according to “unnamed” military sources, not “bold” enough to get soldiers killed and then be having the target of the raid going “neener, neener, neener” all over the internet, stoking the enthusiasm of followers, and making us look pathetic.
The only good thing about this is that it’s shut Flynn and Bannon down good and proper … for a few weeks, anyway.
Lord help us.
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT – YEMEN RAID; “… the raid was first conceived by the military under President Barack Obama’s administration. According to a timeline he outlined, U.S. Central Command first submitted a plan to the Pentagon on Nov. 7, when defense legal teams vetted it. On Dec. 19, it was approved by the Defense Department and recommended by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter to move ahead.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reviewed a memorandum on the plan Jan. 24 during his first week on the job, and Trump was briefed on it by national security adviser Michael Flynn the following day, Spicer said. Trump met with Mattis and Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then authorized the mission one day later.
I’m not criticizing the mission itself, as I know nothing about what such endeavors entail. I heard Rush say it was Obama’s mission the other day (surprised that I listen to Rush?) and you both may be right. But Trump’s statement that no one should criticize such missions is still wrong, and hypocritical given his criticism of past US endeavors.