San Bernardino

I will take down all my FDR posters, if that makes you happy.

 

McCarthy and Trump were/are demagogues. FDR was not. I am not excusing the internment camps, but FDR didn't run around denouncing people and inflaming hatred. He made a terrible decision during a time of war when people were already scared.

Trump and McCarthy are/were scaring people and inflating threats to increase their power.

 

I wonder if, in turn, any of the Trump troglodytes would come out and say they agree with FDR's decision. They pretty clearly do. Let them formally align themselves with one of the more shameful acts in our history.

 

YF outing alert.

 

So, maybe Trump's "plan" is un-Constitutional. Every media outlet says it is, but has any done an actual thoughtful article showing that it is?

I see this for the most part:

Donald Trump’s proposal to bar all Muslims from entering the United States violates U.S. and international law and would never be allowed by the courts, legal scholars said late Monday.

“Oh, for the love of God,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University. “This would not only violate international law, but do so by embracing open discrimination against one religion. It would make the United States a virtual pariah among nations.’’

Experts: Trump’s Muslim entry ban idea ‘ridiculous,’ ‘unconstitutional’

Turley doesn't pick it apart. He isn't even quoted as saying it's un-Constitutional.

As for "international law", can he show me where this is enshrined? Seems to me a whole lot of countries are in violation of this rule.

Can a Jew visit Saudi Arabia? Is someone holding them accountable for this violation of international law? And, if they are in violation of this law, why are we granting their citizens Visas to visit here? Why aren't they a pariah among nations?

 

Looks like Vox isn't so sure the "plan" is un-Constitutional:

Is it constitutional to prevent all Muslims from entering the US?

It certainly sounds unconstitutional — the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion for all Americans. But when it comes to approving visas to come to the US, the government has a lot of leeway: it doesn't have to tell someone why his or her visa (or application to immigrate permanently) was denied. So in practice, the US could probably quietly deny Muslims' visa requests for a while.

Donald Trump proposes "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"

 

International "law."

LOL.

 

Exactly.

You know, I mocked the Times for their "Republicans attack" headline the other day in response to the President's Oval Office speech, but "media attacks" really does fit in response to everything Trump says.

And, they almost always do overreach, and it ends up helping Trump.

So, if Trump's plan is obviously un-Constitutional, show me this. Don't give me a Constitutional expert who expresses exasperation, cites, international law, and argues that we would be a pariah nation if we implemented it.

If Turley told you Trumps plan is un-Constitutional, why isn't he quoted saying that?

 

Thought you'd get a chuckle out of that.

 

Let's look at the WaPo's other experts, and what they say, and let's also remember that's Trump's "plan" would be temporary*:

“That’s blatantly unconstitutional if it excludes U.S. citizens because they are Muslims. It’s ridiculous,” said Richard Friedman, a law professor at the University of Michigan. He cited the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause and the First Amendment’s doctrine of freedom of religion.

OK. Well, what did he say when he cited the equal protection clause and the First Amendment’s doctrine of freedom of religion? I'd be curious to know how they apply to non-citizens who are not currently in the country. Is there some evidence that it does apply to them? Did the Post ask this, or seek any contrary views, or did they just want an article blasting the idea?

Well, they don't quote any, or tell us if they asked Friedman, but they did say this:

Barring Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the country may not violate U.S. law in the same way, the experts said, because the Constitution’s protections generally do not apply to people outside the nation’s borders. But that’s irrelevant, they said, because Trump’s plan would break many principles of international law and agreements the U.S. has signed with other nations.

But, hey, the fact that the Constitution may not apply is irrelevant, because, you know, International Law.

Here's the other expert:

“We have treaties, all sorts of relationships with other countries,’’ said Palma Yanni, a D.C. immigration lawyer and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I’m sure it would violate innumerable treaties if we suddenly started banning citizens of NATO countries, of Southeast Asian countries.’’

They don't even quote the past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association calling it un-Constitutional, but she's "sure" it would violate some treaties. LOL.

So, does the Post article back up the headline:

Experts: Trump’s Muslim entry ban idea ‘ridiculous,’ ‘unconstitutional’

Have they made the case that Trump's plan is un-Constitutional?

* I'm mostly focused on the issuing of Visas, since this would be possible, and would eliminate most Muslim visitors. I have no idea how you would keep out Muslim citizens from Europe, unless you could show they had travelled to Iraq or Syria.

 

On ABC this morning, Trump couldn't explain how he would accomplish the objective (let's not get ahead of ourselves and call it a plan), so it's kind of hard to examine the legalities. I also wonder if perhaps the rhetoric itself was his lone objective.

 

The Post article states pretty clearly it's only unconstitutional if applied to U.S. citizens.

As far as being against "international law," maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That doesn't mean it doesn't go against every principle this country allegedly stands for.